do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-472/20 and T-472/20 AJ II: Order of the General Court of 26 April 2021 — Jouvin v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the collection, tracking and distribution of parcels — Decision rejecting a complaint — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Application for legal aid submitted after an action had been brought)
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, legal aid, logistics, postal service








C_2021252EN.01002501.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/25






Order of the General Court of 26 April 2021 — Jouvin v Commission
(Case T-472/20 and T-472/20 AJ II) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the collection, tracking and distribution of parcels - Decision rejecting a complaint - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Application for legal aid submitted after an action had been brought)
(2021/C 252/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Frédéric Jouvin (Clichy, France) (represented by: L. Bôle-Richard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, A. Keidel and A. Boitos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 3503 final of 28 May 2020 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant concerning alleged infringements of Article 101 TFEU.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


The application for legal aid is rejected.










3.


Mr Frédéric Jouvin shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 23 April 2021 2021/C 147/03
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021147EN.01000301.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 April 2021
(2021/C 147/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2066 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,98 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86905 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1405 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1038 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0430 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,847 




HUF


Hungarian forint


363,47 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5623 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9245 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0635 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5590 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5062 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3653 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6802 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6010 




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,03 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2068 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8320 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5705 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 526,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9585 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,333 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,3287 




THB


Thai baht


37,850 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5572 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9455 




INR


Indian rupee


90,4715 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 154/01
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, medical institution, merger control, psychiatric institution, social facilities








C_2021154EN.01000101.xml










30.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 154/01)
On 26 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 32021M10207. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-266/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 April 2021 — Criminal proceedings against HV
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, administrative sanction, criminal negligence, criminal procedure, criminal proceedings, highway code, residence, road transport, transport accident








C_2021263EN.01001101.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 April 2021 — Criminal proceedings against HV
(Case C-266/21)
(2021/C 263/15)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Defendant at first instance

HV

Questions referred







1.


Do judicial decisions in criminal proceedings by which, in the case of offences consisting of a breach of road traffic regulations and moderate bodily harm caused by negligence, the administrative sanction of suspension of the right to drive a vehicle for a specified period is imposed on the offender fall within the scope of Article 2(4) and Article 4(1)(d) 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?










2.


Do the provisions of Article 11(2) and the first to third subparagraphs of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences constitute a basis for the Member State in which the holder of a driving licence issued by that State is habitually resident to refuse to recognise and enforce an administrative sanction, in the form of a temporary withdrawal of the right to drive a vehicle, imposed in another Member State for the offence of breaching road traffic regulations and negligently causing moderate bodily harm to another person, an offence committed at a time when the offender held a driving licence issued by the State of residence, for which the driving licence originally issued by the State of conviction had been exchanged?
Case T-222/21: Action brought on 26 April 2021 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electronic commerce, information system, market research, mobile application, registered trade mark, social media, trade-mark law








C_2021228EN.01003901.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/39






Action brought on 26 April 2021 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)
(Case T-222/21)
(2021/C 228/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shopify Inc. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi (Fiano, Italy), Salvatore Vacante (Berlin, Germany), Shoppi Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Shoppi in dark blue, white, red, orange — European Union trade mark No 16 684 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2021 in Case R 785/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the appeal of the other parties to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO against the Cancellation Division’s decision of 6 February 2020 (invalidity number: 000034203 C);










—


order EUIPO and the other parties to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 26 April 2021 concerning a preliminary draft prohibition decision in the case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds Meeting by audio conference – via ‘Skype for Business’ Rapporteur: Estonia (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 418/09
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, bond, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, price agreement, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2021418EN.01001501.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/15






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 26 April 2021 concerning a preliminary draft prohibition decision in the case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds
Meeting by audio conference – via ‘Skype for Business’
Rapporteur: Estonia
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 418/09)






1.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA agreement.










3.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.










4.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees.










5.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision, with the exception of the immunity applicant.










6.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales to enable the application to the case of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










7.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.










8.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-317/20: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — KX v PY GmbH
Date: 2021-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract of carriage, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, package travel, residence, right of action, traveller








C_2021289EN.01003102.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/31






Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — KX v PY GmbH
(Case C-317/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/44)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.