do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 16 April 2021 2021/C 136/04
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021136EN.01000501.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 April 2021
(2021/C 136/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1986 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,37 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4368 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86793 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1055 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1011 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0180 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,927 




HUF


Hungarian forint


361,10 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5509 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9263 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,6692 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5459 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4986 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3152 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6725 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5980 




KRW


South Korean won


1 335,70 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0967 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8157 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5668 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 420,96 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9466 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,001 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,8921 




THB


Thai baht


37,420 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,7400 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,8806 




INR


Indian rupee


89,2355 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-212/21: Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, electronic component, engine, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, research, software, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01006702.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/67






Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)
(Case T-212/21)
(2021/C 217/85)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sustainability through Quality — Application for registration No 18 158 368

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1076/2020-1

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Notice to economic operators New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products 2021/C 136/06
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, agricultural product, common customs tariff, import (EU), industrial product, suspension of customs duties








C_2021136EN.01000701.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/7






Notice to economic operators
New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products
(2021/C 136/06)
Economic operators are informed that the Commission has received requests in accordance with the administrative arrangements foreseen in the Commission Communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2011/C 363/02) (1) for the January round of 2022.
The list of the products for which a duty suspension is requested is now available on the Commission’s thematic (Europa) website on the customs union (2).
Economic operators are also informed that the deadline for objections against new requests to reach the Commission, via the national administrations, is 17 June 2021 which is the date of the second scheduled meeting of the Economic Tariff Questions Group.
Interested operators are advised to consult the list regularly in order to be informed on the status as the requests.
More information on the autonomous tariff suspension procedure can be found on the Europa website:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/suspensions/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ C 363, 13.12.2011, p. 6.

(2)  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp?Lang=en
Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran 2021/C 136/03
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2021136EN.01000401.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/4






Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2021/C 136/03)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Anis NACCACHE (No 13), Mr. Davoud BABAEI (No 23), Armed Forces Geographical Organisation (No 2), Shahid Ahmad Kazemi Industrial Group (No 38) and Organisation of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND) (No 153), persons and entities appearing in Annex II, Part I, to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX, Part I, to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The following information is also brought to the attention of Rear Admiral Ali FADAVI (no 2) and Mr. Mohammad Ali JAFARI (No 6), persons appearing in Annex II, Part II, to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Annex IX, Part II, to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. The persons and entities concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for their designation, by 28 April 2021, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu






(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.
Case C-246/21 P: Appeal brought on 19 April 2021 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-17/19, European Parliament v Giulia Moi
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, administrative sanction, allowances and expenses, disciplinary proceedings, financial interests of members, harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2021228EN.01002601.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/26






Appeal brought on 19 April 2021 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-17/19, European Parliament v Giulia Moi
(Case C-246/21 P)
(2021/C 228/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr, M. Windisch, T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Giulia Moi

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


give final judgment in the dispute submitted to the General Court, by granting the form of order sought by the European Parliament during the proceedings at first instance;










—


order the applicant to pay all the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







—


First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court misused its powers and ruled ultra petita since it included, in the subject matter of the dispute, the decision of the President of the European Parliament finding the existence of a situation of harassment and annulled that decision (paragraphs 34, 37, 38 and 76 of the judgment under appeal);










—


Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court infringed the Parliament’s rights of defence (paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment under appeal);










—


Third ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 263(6) TFEU since it failed to observe the time limit for bringing an action for annulment fixed in that article and included in the subject matter of the dispute the decision, which had in the meantime become final, of the President of the European Parliament finding the existence of a situation of harassment (paragraphs 76 and 77 of the judgment under appeal);










—


Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court infringed Article 232 TFEU since it did not take account of the power of the Parliament to organise freely the way in which it operates, as provided in the internal rules on the procedure relating to harassment involving Members of the European Parliament and in the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, in particular in Articles 166 and 167, applicable at the material time, on the imposition of penalties (paragraphs 12, 13, 63, 66, 129 and 132 of the judgment under appeal).
Commission Communication 2021/C 136/05
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: European cultural event, European symbol, Germany, Goriška, Saxony, Slovenia, capital city








C_2021136EN.01000601.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/6






COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
(2021/C 136/05)
The European Capitals of Culture 2025 are Chemnitz (Germany) and Nova Gorica (Slovenia).
Case C-245/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2021 –Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA, PB
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, appeal, asylum seeker, coronavirus disease, epidemic, removal, right of asylum








C_2021278EN.01002701.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2021 –Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA, PB
(Case C-245/21)
(2021/C 278/38)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: MA, PB

Questions referred







1.


Does suspension by the authorities of the implementation of a transfer decision, which is revocable only on account of the fact that transfers are (temporarily) impossible in fact due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fall within the scope of Article 27(4) of the Dublin III Regulation (1) during appeal proceedings?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does such a suspension decision interrupt the time limit for transfer pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a court had dismissed an application by the asylum seeker pursuant to Article 27(3)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation for implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Case T-210/21: Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO — R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia (LOPEZ DE HARO)
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2021228EN.01003401.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/34






Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO — R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia (LOPEZ DE HARO)
(Case T-210/21)
(2021/C 228/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia SA (Haro, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark LOPEZ DE HARO — Application for registration No 17 909 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 in Case R 1741/2020-5

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant EU trade mark application No 17 909 326 LÓPEZ DE HARO (figurative mark) for goods in Class 33;










—


order any party opposing the present action to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.