do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-2/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal procedure against A.P. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA — Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions — Scope — Judgment imposing a suspended custodial sentence — Probation measure — Obligation not to commit a new criminal offence — Obligation prescribed by law)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conditional discharge, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, ruling








C_2020215EN.01001701.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/17






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal procedure against A.P.
(Case C-2/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA - Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions - Scope - Judgment imposing a suspended custodial sentence - Probation measure - Obligation not to commit a new criminal offence - Obligation prescribed by law)
(2020/C 215/19)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Party to the criminal procedure in the main proceedings

A.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that recognition of a judgment that has imposed a custodial sentence whose execution is suspended subject to the sole condition that a legal obligation not to commit a new criminal offence during a probation period be complied with falls within the scope of that framework decision, provided that that legal obligation results from that judgment or from a probation decision taken on the basis of that judgment, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.


(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case C-66/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — JC v Kreissparkasse Saarlouis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreements for consumers — Right of withdrawal — Time limit for the exercise of that right — Requirements concerning the information to be included in a credit agreement — Information notice merely referring to a series of national provisions)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, national law, termination of a contract








C_2020215EN.01001702.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/17






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — JC v Kreissparkasse Saarlouis
(Case C-66/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Right of withdrawal - Time limit for the exercise of that right - Requirements concerning the information to be included in a credit agreement - Information notice merely referring to a series of national provisions)
(2020/C 215/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JC

Defendant: Kreissparkasse Saarlouis

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the information to be specified, in a clear and concise manner, in a credit agreement in accordance with that provision includes information on how the period of withdrawal, provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of that directive, is to be calculated.










2.


Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as precluding a credit agreement from making reference, as regards the information referred to in Article 10 of that directive, to a provision of national law which itself refers to other legislative provisions of the Member State in question.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case C-344/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Gent — Belgium) — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Atalian NV, formerly Euroclean NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3(1) — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Public contract for cleaning services — Award of market lots to two new contractors — Re-engagement of a worker assigned to all the market lots)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, cleaning industry, labour law, services contract, termination of employment, transfer of businesses, work contract, working conditions








C_2020215EN.01000701.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Gent — Belgium) — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Atalian NV, formerly Euroclean NV
(Case C-344/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3(1) - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Public contract for cleaning services - Award of market lots to two new contractors - Re-engagement of a worker assigned to all the market lots)
(2020/C 215/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ISS Facility Services NV

Defendants: Sonia Govaerts, Atalian NV, formerly Euroclean NV

Operative part of the judgment

Where there is a transfer of undertaking involving a number of transferees, Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment are transferred to each of the transferees, in proportion to the tasks performed by the worker concerned, provided that the division of the contract of employment as a result of the transfer is possible and neither causes a worsening of working conditions nor adversely affects the safeguarding of the rights of workers guaranteed by that directive, which it is for the referring court to determine. If such a division were to be impossible to carry out or would adversely affect the rights of that worker, the transferee(s) would be regarded as being responsible for any consequent termination of the employment relationship, under Article 4 of that directive, even if that termination were to be initiated by the worker.


(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 25 March 2020 2020/C 99/05
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020099EN.01000501.xml










26.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 March 2020
(2020/C 99/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0827 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4682 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91503 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9638 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0602 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7745 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,446 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5817 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8446 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,9672 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7993 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5539 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3941 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8479 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5651 




KRW


South Korean won


1 334,82 




ZAR


South African rand


18,8478 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6844 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6083 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 447,71 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7493 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,250 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,8015 




THB


Thai baht


35,491 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4937 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,5704 




INR


Indian rupee


82,6990 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-646/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Bonnafous v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Audit Report on HR Management in the EACEA — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, audit, executive agency, personnel administration, report








C_2020175EN.01001701.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/17






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Bonnafous v Commission
(Case T-646/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Audit Report on HR Management in the EACEA - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)
(2020/C 175/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFUE seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6753 final of 9 October 2018 rejecting the application for access to the final 2018 audit report on HR Management in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) dated 21 January 2018 brought by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-77/19: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se — Earlier EU word mark ALCAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, hiring, registered trade mark, rental business, trade-mark law, vehicle rental, vessel








C_2020175EN.01001702.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/17






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)
(Case T-77/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark alcar.se - Earlier EU word mark ALCAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 175/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alcar Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 (Case R 378/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Alcar Holding and Alcar Aktiebolag.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Alcar Aktiebolag to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case T-31/19: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — AF v FRA (Action for annulment and damages — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Duties as an administrator as a policy adviser in grade AD 12 — Assignment to the type of post ‘administrator’ — 2014 Staff Regulations — No eligibility for reclassification in the grade above — 2017 reclassification exercise — Refusal to consider the applicant for the purposes of his reclassification in grade AD 13 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, full-time employment, indemnification, pay scale, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2020191EN.01001202.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/12






Order of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — AF v FRA
(Case T-31/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and damages - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Duties as an administrator as a policy adviser in grade AD 12 - Assignment to the type of post ‘administrator’ - 2014 Staff Regulations - No eligibility for reclassification in the grade above - 2017 reclassification exercise - Refusal to consider the applicant for the purposes of his reclassification in grade AD 13 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 191/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the FRA decision of 9 May 2018 not to include the applicant’s name in the list of temporary staff eligible for reclassification to grade AD 13 in the 2017 reclassification exercise and, secondly, compensation for the loss he has allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) shall bear its own costs and pay one quarter of the costs incurred by AF.










3.


AF shall bear three quarters of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Case C-622/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — AR v Cooper International Spirits LLC, St Dalfour SAS, Établissement Gabriel Boudier SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1)(b) — First subparagraph of Article 10(1) — Article 12(1) — Revocation of a trade mark for lack of genuine use — Right of the trade mark proprietor to plead infringement of his or her exclusive rights as a result of the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign during the period preceding the date on which the revocation took effect)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, damages, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01001201.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — AR v Cooper International Spirits LLC, St Dalfour SAS, Établissement Gabriel Boudier SA
(Case C-622/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1)(b) - First subparagraph of Article 10(1) - Article 12(1) - Revocation of a trade mark for lack of genuine use - Right of the trade mark proprietor to plead infringement of his or her exclusive rights as a result of the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign during the period preceding the date on which the revocation took effect)
(2020/C 215/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AR

Defendants: Cooper International Spirits LLC, St Dalfour SAS, Établissement Gabriel Boudier SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(b), the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with recital 6 thereof, must be interpreted as leaving Member States the option of allowing the proprietor of a trade mark whose rights in that mark have been revoked on expiry of the five-year period from its registration because he or she failed to make genuine use of the mark in the Member State concerned in connection with the goods or services for which it was registered to retain the right to claim compensation for the injury sustained as a result of the use by a third party, before the date on which the revocation took effect, of a similar sign in connection with identical or similar goods or services that is liable to be confused with his or her trade mark.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case T-547/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 –Teeäär v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB — Rejection of an application to take part in that programme — Eligibility conditions — Different lengths of service required depending on whether a staff member is in a single salary band or a salary broadband — Allocation to a salary band on the basis of the type of employment — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, equal treatment, outplacement, pay scale, principle of proportionality, seniority, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020175EN.01001602.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/16






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 –Teeäär v ECB
(Case T-547/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB - Rejection of an application to take part in that programme - Eligibility conditions - Different lengths of service required depending on whether a staff member is in a single salary band or a salary broadband - Allocation to a salary band on the basis of the type of employment - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment)
(2020/C 175/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: D. Camilleri Podestà and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for, first, annulment of the decision of the ECB of 27 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the pilot programme of support for transition to a career outside the ECB and, in so far as necessary, the ECB’s decision of 3 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal against the abovementioned decision of 27 February 2018 and, secondly, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Raivo Teeäär to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-244/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2020 — Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Capital injections and State guarantees — Concept of State aid — Concept of ‘advantage’ — Private operator principle — Private investor test — European Commission’s obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination — Judicial review — Burden of proof — Concept of ‘firm in difficulty’ — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring — Guarantee Notice — 2011 temporary framework — Amount of aid to be recovered — Duty of the Commission and the General Court of the European Union to state reasons)
Date: 2020-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, control of State aid, credit guarantee, guarantee, judicial review, private investment, proof








C_2020215EN.01000501.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2020 — Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v European Commission
(Case C-244/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Capital injections and State guarantees - Concept of State aid - Concept of ‘advantage’ - Private operator principle - Private investor test - European Commission’s obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination - Judicial review - Burden of proof - Concept of ‘firm in difficulty’ - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring - Guarantee Notice - 2011 temporary framework - Amount of aid to be recovered - Duty of the Commission and the General Court of the European Union to state reasons)
(2020/C 215/06)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (represented by: I. Drillerakis, E. Rantos, N. Korogiannakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, and G. Psaroudakis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2018, Larko v Commission (T-423/14, EU:T:2018:57), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the first part of the first plea in law to the extent that it relates to a guarantee granted in 2008 by the Greek State to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE concerning a loan of EUR 30 million granted by ATE Bank to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE;










2.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










3.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.