do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-233/20: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2021278EN.01004401.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/44






Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)
(Case T-233/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 278/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2020 (Case R 1544/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case T-261/20: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2021278EN.01004402.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/44






Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)
(Case T-261/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 278/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 1547/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case C-324/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v F.
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, asylum seeker, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2021320EN.01002901.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v F.
(Case C-324/21)
(2021/C 320/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondent: F.

Question referred

Must Article 29 of 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]) be interpreted as meaning that a current transfer time limit, as referred to in Article 29(1) and (2), restarts at the point at which the foreign national, having obstructed the transfer by a Member State by absconding, lodges a fresh application for international protection in another (in this case, a third) Member State?
Case T-263/20: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2021278EN.01004601.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/46






Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)
(Case T-263/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 278/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 1545/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case T-262/20: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2021278EN.01004501.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/45






Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)
(Case T-262/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 278/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 1546/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case C-323/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v B.
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, asylum seeker, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2021320EN.01002802.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v B.
(Case C-323/21)
(2021/C 320/28)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondent: B.

Questions referred







1.








a)


Must the term ‘requesting Member State’ within the meaning of Article 29(2) of 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]) be interpreted as referring to the Member State (in this case, the third Member State, namely the Netherlands) which was the last to submit a take back or take charge request to another Member State?










b)


If the answer is in the negative: does the fact that a claim agreement has previously been concluded between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) still have consequences for the legal obligations of the third Member State (in this case, the Netherlands) under the Dublin Regulation towards the foreign national or the Member States concerned by that earlier claim agreement, and if so, what are those consequences?














2.


If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, be interpreted as precluding an applicant for international protection from successfully arguing, in the context of an appeal against a transfer decision, that that transfer cannot proceed because the time limit for a previously agreed transfer between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) has expired?
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/875 of 25 May 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Sõir’ (PGI))
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Estonia, Southern Estonia, cows’ milk cheese, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2021192EN.01000201.xml










1.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 192/2








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/875
of 25 May 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Sõir’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Estonia’s application to register the name ‘Sõir’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Sõir’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Sõir’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.4. – Other products of animal origin, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 May 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 46, 9.2.2021, p. 10.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10248 — AP/Lutech) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 219/01
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2021219EN.01000101.xml










9.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10248 — AP/Lutech)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 219/01)
On 25. 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 32021M10248. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 21 May 2021 2021/C 196/01
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021196EN.01000101.xml










25.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 196/1







Euro exchange rates (1)


            21 May 2021
         
(2021/C 196/01)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2188 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85870 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1220 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0951 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1420 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,452 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4892 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9268 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2151 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5698 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4680 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4639 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6914 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6218 




KRW


South Korean won


1 373,05 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9880 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8393 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5102 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 495,87 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0471 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,391 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,4741 




THB


Thai baht


38,234 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4628 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2741 




INR


Indian rupee


88,8020 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Decision of 25 May 2021 on public holidays in 2023 for staff of the European institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg 2021/C 201 I/02
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU institution, public holiday




CI2021201EN.01000201.xml










28.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 201/2






COMMISSION DECISION
of 25 May 2021
on public holidays in 2023 for staff of the European institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg
(2021/C 201 I/02)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS), laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68, (1) and in particular Article 61 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 16 and 91 of the CEOS,
Having regard to the joint rules establishing the list of public holidays of officials of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The list of public holidays in 2023 for staff in Brussels and Luxembourg should be adopted pursuant to Article 61 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Articles 16 and 91 of the CEOS.










(2)


In 2023, Easter Sunday falls on 9 April.










(3)


In 2023, 24 December falls on a Sunday.










(4)


On 24 March 2021, the Heads of Administration were consulted for their opinion on the list of public holidays for 2023,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article
The public holidays in 2023 for staff in Brussels and Luxembourg are as follows:






2 January


Day after New Year’s Day




6 April


Maundy Thursday




7 April


Good Friday




10 April


Easter Monday




1 May


Labour Day




9 May


Anniversary of the Declaration by Robert Schuman in 1950




18 May


Thursday, Ascension Day




19 May


Day after Ascension Day




29 May


Whit Monday




23 June*


Luxembourg National Holiday
*for staff in Luxembourg




21 July*


Belgian National Holiday
*for staff in Brussels




15 August


Assumption




1 November


All Saints’ Day




2 November


All Souls’ Day




25 December
to
29 December


5 end-of-year days





TOTAL 2023




18 days







Done at Brussels, 25 May 2021.


For the Commission

Johannes HAHN

Member of the Commission





(1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2)  Consolidated version of the Staff Regulations published by the Commission in January 2003, p. IV-2.
Case C-325/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU migration policy, France, Netherlands, appeal, asylum seeker, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2021320EN.01003001.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-325/21)
(2021/C 320/30)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: K.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 29 of 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]) be interpreted as meaning that a current transfer time limit, as referred to in Article 29(1) and (2), restarts at the point at which the foreign national, after having obstructed the transfer by a Member State by absconding, lodges a fresh application for international protection in another (in this case, a third) Member State?










2.


If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, be interpreted as precluding an applicant for international protection from successfully arguing, in the context of an appeal against a transfer decision, that that transfer cannot proceed because the time limit for a previously agreed transfer between two Member States (in this case, France and Austria) has expired, with the result that the time limit within which the Netherlands can effect the transfer has expired?
Case C-327/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by Giro Travel Company SRL against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-193/18, Andreas Stihl v EUIPO
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01000401.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/4






Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by Giro Travel Company SRL against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-193/18, Andreas Stihl v EUIPO
(Case C-327/21 P)
(2022/C 37/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Giro Travel Company SRL (represented by: C. N. Frisch, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 26 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Giro Travel Company SRL should bear its own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 May 2021 2021/C 196/02
Date: 2021-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021196EN.01000201.xml










25.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 196/2







Euro exchange rates (1)


            24 May 2021
         
(2021/C 196/02)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2212 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,97 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86408 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1670 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0957 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,98 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2090 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,424 




HUF


Hungarian forint


347,47 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4850 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9255 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2427 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5804 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4731 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4833 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6997 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6236 




KRW


South Korean won


1 375,43 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0622 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8487 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5043 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 530,33 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0631 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,731 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,0519 




THB


Thai baht


38,297 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5299 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,3683 




INR


Indian rupee


89,0517 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.