do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-364/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați — Romania) — XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL v SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Unfair terms — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Exclusion from the scope of that directive of contractual terms which reflect mandatory provisions of national law — Article 4(2) — Exception to the assessment of whether a term is unfair — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Alleged infringement of the obligation of information borne by a seller or supplier — Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2))
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, exchange rate, financial risk, loan, unfair terms of contract








C_2021289EN.01001701.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/17






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați — Romania) — XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL v SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV
(Case C-364/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Exclusion from the scope of that directive of contractual terms which reflect mandatory provisions of national law - Article 4(2) - Exception to the assessment of whether a term is unfair - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Alleged infringement of the obligation of information borne by a seller or supplier - Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2))
(2021/C 289/23)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Galați

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC, NL

Defendants: SC Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN SA, Credit Europe Bank NV

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of a Member State is hearing a dispute relating to an allegedly unfair contractual term which reflects a provision of national law which is supplementary in nature, it is required to examine, as a matter of priority, the effect of the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down in Article 1(2) thereof, and not the effect of the exception to the assessment of whether contractual terms are unfair provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 April 2021 2021/C 130/02
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021130EN.01000201.xml










14.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 April 2021
(2021/C 130/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1896 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,23 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4374 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86698 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2110 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1001 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1675 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,016 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,44 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5668 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9223 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,6893 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5652 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5006 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2477 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6946 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5981 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,32 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4228 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7905 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5695 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 431,21 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9190 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,854 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,8450 




THB


Thai baht


37,579 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,8216 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,0251 




INR


Indian rupee


89,7215 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-543/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Romania v Commission (Cohesion Fund and ERDF — Article 139(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Temporal application of an increased co-financing rate adopted after submission of the final application for interim payment but before acceptance of the accounts — Legitimate expectation — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration)
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, common transport policy, operational programme, principle of additionality, right to justice, transport infrastructure








C_2021242EN.01002801.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/28






Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Romania v Commission
(Case T-543/19) (1)

(Cohesion Fund and ERDF - Article 139(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Temporal application of an increased co-financing rate adopted after submission of the final application for interim payment but before acceptance of the accounts - Legitimate expectation - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration)
(2021/C 242/36)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, A. Rotăreanu and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Armenia, S. Pardo Quintillán and L. Mantl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2019) 4027 final of 23 May 2019 so far as concerns the acceptance of the accounts and the calculation of the amount chargeable to the Cohesion Fund and to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the accounting year 2017-2018 and for ‘Large Infrastructure’ Operational Programme CCI 2014RO16M1OP001, in applying a co-financing rate for Priority Axes 1 and 2 of that operational programme of 75 % and not 85 %.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Romania to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10143 — Inter-Risco/Unavets/OneVet) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 139/02
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, economic concentration, merger control, private equity, provision of services, veterinary medicine








C_2021139EN.01000201.xml










20.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10143 — Inter-Risco/Unavets/OneVet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 139/02)
On 14 April 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10143. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-241/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 14 April 2021 — I.L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: detention before trial, foreign national, illegal migration, offence, prevention of delinquency, removal








C_2021242EN.01001402.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 14 April 2021 — I.L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet
(Case C-241/21)
(2021/C 242/19)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: I.L.

Respondent: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may keep in detention a third-country national in respect of whom there is a real risk that, while at liberty and prior to removal, he or she will commit a criminal offence, the investigation and punishment of which may substantially impede the execution of the removal process?


(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98, corrigendum OJ 2019 L 240, p. 17).
Case T-260/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Al Tarazi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Rights of defence — Right to property — Right to exercise an economic activity — Right to respect for private and family life — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic activity, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2021242EN.01002202.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/22






Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Al Tarazi v Council
(Case T-260/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to property - Right to exercise an economic activity - Right to respect for private and family life - Proportionality)
(2021/C 242/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mazen Al Tarazi (Shuwaikh, Kuwait) (represented by: G. Beck, A. Khan, R. Wilcox, Barristers, and S. Patel, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4) in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mazen Al-Tarazi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Special Report 5/2021 Infrastructure for charging electric vehicles: more charging stations but uneven deployment makes travel across the EU complicated 2021/C 130/03
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, common transport policy, electric vehicle, electrical energy, electricity storage device, road transport, technical standard, transport infrastructure, transport network








C_2021130EN.01000301.xml










14.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/3






Special Report 5/2021
Infrastructure for charging electric vehicles: more charging stations but uneven deployment makes travel across the EU complicated
(2021/C 130/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 05/2021 ‘Infrastructure for charging electric vehicles: more charging stations but uneven deployment makes travel across the EU complicated’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-201/20: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Berebene v EUIPO — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (GHISU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark GHISU — Earlier collective national figurative mark CHIANTI CLASSICO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark)
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003501.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/35






Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Berebene v EUIPO — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (GHISU)
(Case T-201/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GHISU - Earlier collective national figurative mark CHIANTI CLASSICO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark)
(2021/C 242/47)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Berebene Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Massimiani, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (Radda in Chianti, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and F. Corona, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 (Case R 592/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Consorzio vino Chianti Classico and Berebene.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Berebene Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case T-204/21: Action brought on 14 April 2021 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, facilities for people with disabilities, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, transport of patients








C_2021217EN.01006402.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/64






Action brought on 14 April 2021 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)
(Case T-204/21)
(2021/C 217/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stryker Corp. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar, and B. Worbes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark RUGGED

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2021 in Case R 370/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 71(1) read in conjunction with Article 67 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and lack of competence by exceeding the limits of its power;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and incorrect statement that the evidence filed in relation to acquired distinctiveness is insufficient;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for failing to state reasons for its decision.
Case T-579/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic or sports equipment) (Community design — Multiple application for community designs representing gymnastic or sports equipment — Right of priority — Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty — Article 4 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property — Priority period)
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, sports equipment








C_2021242EN.01002901.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/29






Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic or sports equipment)
(Case T-579/19) (1)

(Community design - Multiple application for community designs representing gymnastic or sports equipment - Right of priority - Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty - Article 4 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property - Priority period)
(2021/C 242/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellmann-Cordner, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 573/2019-3) concerning an application for registration of gymnastic or sports equipment as community designs claiming the right of priority of an international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 June 2019 (Case R 573/2019-3);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case T-285/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement — The MARSOL Project — Eligible costs — OLAF investigation report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible — Repayment of sums paid — Burden of proof — Principle of good faith — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Rights of the defence — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Framework Programme for Research and Development, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, research and development, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021242EN.01002301.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/23






Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria v Commission
(Case T-285/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - The MARSOL Project - Eligible costs - OLAF investigation report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible - Repayment of sums paid - Burden of proof - Principle of good faith - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence - Proportionality)
(2021/C 242/30)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Marini, V. Catenacci and R. Viglietta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking primarily, in essence, a declaration that the applicant is not required to repay the amount of EUR 487 914,32 which is part of the total amount awarded to it under Grant Agreement No 619120 concerning the MARSOL Project or, in the alternative, a declaration that the amount to be repaid may not exceed EUR 100 044,99 or, in the further alternative, an order that the Commission is to reimburse the applicant for the costs incurred by the latter in implementing that project, in accordance with the provisions on unjust enrichment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.