do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10196 — Magna/LGE/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 201/03
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, electronics industry, light-duty vehicle, merger control, motor car, motor vehicle industry, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2021201EN.01000301.xml










28.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10196 — Magna/LGE/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 201/03)
On 21 May 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 32021M10196. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10254 — Apax Partners/Rodenstock) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 218/02
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment, merger control, optical industry, provision of services








C_2021218EN.01000201.xml










8.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10254 — Apax Partners/Rodenstock)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 218/02)
On 21 May 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 32021M10254. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-288/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, consultancy, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade event, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01006601.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/66






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve)
(Case T-288/21)
(2021/C 278/89)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cartier International AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ALOve — Application for registration No 16 724 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 2679/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-283/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (TALIS)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01006102.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/61






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (TALIS)
(Case T-283/21)
(2021/C 278/84)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark TALIS — European Union trade mark No 15 632 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 888/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present application;










—


reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 909 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark TALIS and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;










—


order EUIPO to pay all costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-297/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, biocide, equal treatment, market approval, paints and varnishes, plaster








C_2021289EN.01004401.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/44






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission
(Case T-297/21)
(2021/C 289/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Troy Chemical Co. BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Troy Corp. (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Abrahams, H. Widemann and Ł. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 (1) in its entirety;










—


take such other or further measure as justice may require; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.








1.


First plea in law, alleging that, in setting the three-year approval period for carbendazim, the defendant committed an error of law, misused its powers, breached legitimate expectations (derived from applicable guidance), breached the principle of non-discrimination and committed a manifest error of appraisal.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required to ban biocidal product authorisations for use in paints and plasters to be used outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and a misuse of its powers.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required to ban placing on the market of specific treated articles (paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim) for use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal as well as an error of law.












4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required for labelling of paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim for use outdoors to remind users of a ban on use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of law and fact.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 approving carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 and 10 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 174-177).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 May 2021 2021/C 194/02
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021194EN.01000201.xml










21.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 May 2021
(2021/C 194/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2203 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,95 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86400 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1813 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0991 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1775 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,519 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5153 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9278 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2114 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5736 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4778 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4726 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6986 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6261 




KRW


South Korean won


1 379,90 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1639 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8563 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5095 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 589,83 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0594 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,410 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,8263 




THB


Thai baht


38,305 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4567 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2825 




INR


Indian rupee


89,1630 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10177 — Repsol/Suez/Ecoplanta) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 201/04
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, biofuel, chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, petrochemicals, waste management, water management








C_2021201EN.01000401.xml










28.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10177 — Repsol/Suez/Ecoplanta)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 201/04)
On 21 May 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 32021M10177. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-286/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENŠKI HRAM)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01006401.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/64






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENŠKI HRAM)
(Case T-286/21)
(2021/C 278/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark RENŠKI HRAM — European Union trade mark No 15 297 302

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 679/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present application;










—


reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 907 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark RENŠKI HRAM and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;










—


order EUIPO to pay all costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-317/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 21 May 2021 — G-Finance SARL, DV v Luxembourg Business Registers
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: amendment of a law, confidentiality, entrepreneur, equal treatment, money laundering, principle of proportionality, terrorism financing








C_2021297EN.01002501.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 21 May 2021 — G-Finance SARL, DV v Luxembourg Business Registers
(Case C-317/21)
(2021/C 297/29)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: G-Finance SARL, DV

Defendant: Luxembourg Business Registers

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU, (1) and in particular Article 1(15)(c) thereof, amending Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2018/843, in so far as they grant a right of access to information on the beneficial owners of companies and other legal entities to ‘any member of the general public’,
invalid because they:






(a)


infringe the principle of proportionality, as set out, in particular, in Article 5(4) TEU; and/or










(b)


infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business); and/or










(c)


infringe Articles 20 (equality before the law) and 21 (non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and/or










(d)


infringe the general principle of European law of protection of business secrecy?






(1)  OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43.
Case T-158/20: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Yuneec Europe (Breeze) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Breeze — Earlier EU word mark Breeze — Relative ground for refusal — Comparison of the goods — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, electrical equipment, electronic game, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, trade-mark law








C_2021263EN.01002301.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/23






Order of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Yuneec Europe (Breeze)
(Case T-158/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Breeze - Earlier EU word mark Breeze - Relative ground for refusal - Comparison of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 263/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Yuneec Europe GmbH (Kaltenkirchen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2020 (Case R 470/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Yuneec Europe and TrekStor.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


TrekStor Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-320/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, Sweden, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, low cost airline, principle of proportionality, right of establishment








C_2021349EN.01001601.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/16






Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)
(Case C-320/21 P)
(2021/C 349/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of Sweden, SAS AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2784 final of 24 April 2020 on State Aid SA.57061 (2020/N) — Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.
First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.
Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS AB by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.
Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.
Case T-588/20: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — MP v Commission
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pension scheme, seniority, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021263EN.01003703.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/37






Order of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — MP v Commission
(Case T-588/20) (1)

(2021/C 263/49)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Case T-281/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, marketing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021289EN.01004001.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/40






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)
(Case T-281/21)
(2021/C 289/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trademark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark APE TEES in colours black and brown — Application for registration No 14 319 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 2474/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.