do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 April 2021 2021/C 150/01
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021150EN.01000101.xml










28.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 April 2021
(2021/C 150/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2088 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,88 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86895 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1403 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1038 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0073 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,895 




HUF


Hungarian forint


362,77 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5644 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9253 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9189 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5533 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4985 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3825 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6724 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6024 




KRW


South Korean won


1 343,47 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3383 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8373 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5600 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 539,51 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9531 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,517 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,5550 




THB


Thai baht


37,920 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5723 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,0829 




INR


Indian rupee


90,1520 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-278/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 April 2021 — Dansk Akvakultur, acting for AquaPri A/S v Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnet
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, environmental standard, fish farming, nitrogen, water pollution, watercourse








C_2021278EN.01003101.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 April 2021 — Dansk Akvakultur, acting for AquaPri A/S v Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnet
(Case C-278/21)
(2021/C 278/44)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dansk Akvakultur, acting for AquaPri A/S

Defendant: Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnet

Intervener: Landbrug & Fødevarer (in support of AquaPri A/S)

Questions referred







1.


Is [the first sentence of] Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) (1) to be interpreted as being applicable to a situation such as that in the present case in which an authorisation is sought to continue operation of an existing fish farm, where the activity of the fish farm and the discharge of nitrogen and other nutrients remains unchanged in relation to the activity and discharge authorised in 2006, but where no assessment was made of the overall activity and the cumulative effects of all the fish farms in the area in connection with the previous authorisation of the fish farm, in so far as the relevant authorities assessed only the overall additional discharge of nitrogen etc. from the fish farm concerned?










2.


Is it relevant, for the purpose of answering Question 1, that the national River Basin Management Plan 2015-2021 takes account of the presence of the fish farms in the area in so far as it sets aside a specific amount of nitrogen to ensure that the existing fish farms in the area can make use of their present discharge authorisations and that the actual discharge from the fish farms remains within the set limits?










3.


If, in a situation such as that in the present case, an assessment must be carried out pursuant to [the first sentence of] Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, is the relevant authority required, in connection with that assessment, to take into account the limits on the discharge of nitrogen set aside in the River Basin Management Plan 2015-2021 and any other relevant information and assessments which might arise from the River Basin Management Plan or the Natura 2000 plan for the area?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
Case T-348/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Freistaat Bayern v EUIPO (GEWÜRZSOMMELIER) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark GEWÜRZSOMMELIER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Neologism)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, condiment, consultancy, dietary product, education, prepared foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, traineeship








C_2021242EN.01004101.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/41






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Freistaat Bayern v EUIPO (GEWÜRZSOMMELIER)
(Case T-348/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark GEWÜRZSOMMELIER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Neologism)
(2021/C 242/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: V. Lehmann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2020 (Case R 2430/2019-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GEWÜRZSOMMELIER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Freistaat Bayern to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-584/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national word marks PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Referral)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, confectionery, foodstuff, registered trade mark, sugar, sweetener, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01001801.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/18






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)
(Case T-584/17 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz - Earlier national word marks PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Referral)
(2021/C 242/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 (Case R 1933/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bolton Cile España and Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Case T-191/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — FCA Italy v EUIPO — Bettag (Pandem) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Pandem — Earlier national and international word marks PANDA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2021242EN.01003402.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/34






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — FCA Italy v EUIPO — Bettag (Pandem)
(Case T-191/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Pandem - Earlier national and international word marks PANDA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FCA Italy SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Christoph Bettag (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: M. Metzner, A. Hönninger and M. Zeis, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2020 (Case R 1483/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between FCA Italy and Mr Bettag.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FCA Italy SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case T-300/20: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ACCUSÌ — Earlier EU word mark ACÚSTIC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003702.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/37






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ)
(Case T-300/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ACCUSÌ - Earlier EU word mark ACÚSTIC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Rubino and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tros del Beto, SLU (Marçà, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 871/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tros del Belo and Nosio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10225 — AES/Coatue/Schneider Electric/Uplight) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 170/01
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy consumption, energy distribution, energy industry, energy saving, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, renewable energy, thermal energy








C_2021170EN.01000101.xml










6.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 170/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10225 — AES/Coatue/Schneider Electric/Uplight)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 170/01)
On 28 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 32021M10225. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/646 of 19 April 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform procedures and technical specifications for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their emergency lane-keeping systems (ELKS) (Official Journal of the European Union L 133 of 20 April 2021)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, approval, motor vehicle, road safety, safety device, safety standard, technical specification, technical standard




L_2021145EN.01004201.xml










28.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 145/42







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/646 of 19 April 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform procedures and technical specifications for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their emergency lane-keeping systems (ELKS)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 133 of 20 April 2021
)


On page 40, in Annex I, Part 2, Technical specifications, point 3.6.2, Lane keep, in the table:
for:







‘No


Scenario description




1.


Solid line – Departure to right side of the vehicle









2.


Solid line – Departure to left side of the vehicle



’





read:







‘No


Scenario description




1.


Solid line – Departure to right side of the vehicle









2.


Solid line – Departure to left side of the vehicle



’
Case T-644/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Linde Material Handling v EUIPO — Verti Aseguradora (VertiLight) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark VertiLight — Earlier national word mark VERTI — Relative ground for refusal — No damage to reputation — No link between the marks at issue — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, signalling device, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01003002.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/30






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Linde Material Handling v EUIPO — Verti Aseguradora (VertiLight)
(Case T-644/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VertiLight - Earlier national word mark VERTI - Relative ground for refusal - No damage to reputation - No link between the marks at issue - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 242/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Linde Material Handling GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, and Linde Material Handling.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2018-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Linde Material Handling GmbH;










3.


Orders Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA, to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-509/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FLÜGEL — Earlier national word marks … VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL — Relative grounds for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Article 70(2) and Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021242EN.01002601.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/26






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)
(Case T-509/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FLÜGEL - Earlier national word marks … VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL - Relative grounds for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 70(2) and Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 242/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors and N. Dorenbosch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2019 (Case R 201/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Red Bull and Asolo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Asolo LTD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Case T-540/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Sharif v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to exercise an economic activity)
Date: 2021-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic activity, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality








C_2021242EN.01002701.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/27






Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Sharif v Council
(Case T-540/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to exercise an economic activity)
(2021/C 242/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ammar Sharif (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle, L. Cloquet and J. Kobeissi, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, J. Norris and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ammar Sharif to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.