do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 April 2021 2021/C 140/01
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021140EN.01000101.xml










21.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 April 2021
(2021/C 140/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2051 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86295 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1288 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1029 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9965 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,903 




HUF


Hungarian forint


361,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5525 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9278 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,7764 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5492 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5089 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3550 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6735 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6009 




KRW


South Korean won


1 342,91 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2287 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8303 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5715 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 508,48 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9596 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,214 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,2786 




THB


Thai baht


37,690 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,7117 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9731 




INR


Indian rupee


90,5480 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-345/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark MEN+ — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, animal skin, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01004002.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/40






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)
(Case T-345/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark MEN+ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 242/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Zick, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 (Case R 1906/2019-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEN+ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Corrigendum to European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), Bilbao – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2020/20049 (Official Journal of the European Union C 171 A of 19 May 2020) 2021/C 140 I/01
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, administrator, competition (EU), job vacancy, managing director, servant (EU)








CI2021140EN.01000101.xml










21.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 140/1






Corrigendum to European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), Bilbao – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2020/20049

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 171 A of 19 May 2020
)

(2021/C 140 I/01)
On page 4, sixth paragraph:
for:

‘Before the Management Board appoints one of the shortlisted candidates, applicants will be asked to address the competent bodies of the Council and the European Parliament Committee and to reply to questions. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will then give their opinions and state their orders of preference. The Management Board will appoint the Executive Director after taking these opinions into account.’,

read:

‘The selected candidate shall be invited to make a statement before the European Parliament and to answer questions from Members of Parliament.’.
Decision (EU) 2021/798 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 21 April 2021 appointing two Judges and two Advocates-General to the Court of Justice
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2021176EN.01000301.xml










19.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 176/3








            DECISION (EU) 2021/798 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 21 April 2021
         
appointing two Judges and two Advocates-General to the Court of Justice


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of 14 Judges and six Advocates-General of the Court of Justice will expire on 6 October 2021.












(2)


Appointments to these posts should therefore be made for the term of office starting on 7 October 2021 and expiring on 6 October 2027.












(3)


It has been proposed that the term of office of Mr Eugene REGAN as Judge of the Court of Justice be renewed.












(4)


It has been proposed that the term of office of Mr Athanasios RANTOS as Advocate-General of the Court of Justice be renewed.












(5)


Mr Dimitrios GRATSIAS has been nominated for a first term of office as Judge of the Court of Justice.












(6)


Mr Nicholas EMILIOU has been nominated for a first term of office as Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.












(7)


The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of those candidates to perform the duties of Judge or Advocate-General of the Court of Justice,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed Judges of the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2021 to 6 October 2027:






—


Mr Eugene REGAN,










—


Mr Dimitrios GRATSIAS.






Article 2
The following are hereby appointed Advocates-General of the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2021 to 6 October 2027:






—


Mr Athanasios RANTOS,










—


Mr Nicholas EMILIOU.






Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 21 April 2021.


The President

N. BRITO
Case T-323/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark HELL — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, instant product, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003902.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/39






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)
(Case T-323/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HELL - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/54)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and B. Mező, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Kondás and P. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 (Case R 1712/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign HELL as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 March 2020 (Case R 1712/2019-2);










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Case C-248/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v LE
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, appeal, asylum seeker, coronavirus disease, epidemic, removal, right of asylum








C_2021278EN.01002801.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v LE
(Case C-248/21)
(2021/C 278/39)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


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

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: LE

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-252/19: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Pech v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Protection of legal advice — First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Protection of the decision-making process — Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service)
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, access to EU information, budget policy, distribution of EU funding, financial management, general budget (EU), implementation of the budget, opinion of the Council, proposal (EU), rule of law








C_2021242EN.01002201.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/22






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Pech v Council
(Case T-252/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Protection of legal advice - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Protection of the decision-making process - Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service)
(2021/C 242/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laurent Pech (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and T. McGrath, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pavlaki and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, J. Lundberg, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 12 February 2019 refusing to grant full access to the opinion of its Legal Service contained in document ST 13593 2018 INIT concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 May 2018 on the protection of the European Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 February 2019 refusing full access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT, containing the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final);










2.


Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Pech;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 140/04
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, health care, investment company, mass media, merger control, retail selling, software, technology, wholesale selling








C_2021140EN.01000901.xml










21.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 140/04)

1.   
On 14 April 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Bridgepoint Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom); and










—


Infinigate Holding AG (‘Infinigate’, Switzerland), controlled by H.I.G. Capital L.L.C. (‘HIG’).




Bridgepoint acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Infinigate.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Bridgepoint: an international private equity group focused on investing in established European middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors, including consumer/retail, business services, industrials, financial services, healthcare, media and technology;










—


for Infinigate: value-added wholesale distribution of IT security products (including firewalls, VPN gateways, intrusion detection and prevention systems, encryption, virus protection, e-mail and content security solutions, and cloud-enabled security solutions).






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-382/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons) (Community design — Application for a Community design representing table knives, forks and spoons — Lack of priority claim — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 67(1) and (2) Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Duty of due care)
Date: 2021-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, tinplate and cutlery industry








C_2021242EN.01004301.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/43






Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons)
(Case T-382/20) (1)

(Community design - Application for a Community design representing table knives, forks and spoons - Lack of priority claim - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 67(1) and (2) Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Duty of due care)
(2021/C 242/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Keun Jig Lee (Paju-si, South Korea) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 (Case R 2559/2019-3), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Keun Jig Lee to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.