do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 June 2021 2021/C 254/04
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021254EN.01000401.xml










29.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 June 2021
(2021/C 254/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1910 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85710 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1268 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0969 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1763 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,499 




HUF


Hungarian forint


351,98 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5070 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9268 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,4130 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5753 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4687 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2459 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6926 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6014 




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,92 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9846 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6922 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4964 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 274,78 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9379 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,978 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,0594 




THB


Thai baht


38,082 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9159 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6527 




INR


Indian rupee


88,4940 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-366/21: Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase)
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, electronic device, meteorology, miscellaneous industries, press agency, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021338EN.01002601.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/26






Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase)
(Case T-366/21)
(2021/C 338/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bitFlyer Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark coinbase — International registration designating the European Union No 1 308 248

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2021 in Case R 1751/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council .
Case C-396/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2021 — KT, NS v FTI Touristik GmbH
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, contract terms, contractual liability, coronavirus disease, damages, epidemic, traveller








C_2021382EN.01001601.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2021 — KT, NS v FTI Touristik GmbH
(Case C-396/21)
(2021/C 382/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: KT, NS

Defendant: FTI Touristik GmbH

Question referred

Do restrictions imposed due to an infectious disease that is prevalent at the travel destination constitute a lack of conformity within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) even if, because of the worldwide spread of the infectious disease, such restrictions were imposed both in the traveller’s place of residence and in other countries?


(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).
Letter from Frank Elderson, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), to Elżbieta Witek, Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, regarding a request for an ECB opinion on a draft law amending the Law on Narodowy Bank Polski
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: money

Frank Elderson 
Member of the Executive Board 

Mrs Elżbieta Witek  

Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland 
ul. Wiejska 4/6/8 
00-902 Warsaw 
POLAND  

ECB-PUBLIC 

[COURTESY TRANSLATION1] 

Frankfurt am Main, 29 June 2021 

Request for an ECB opinion on a draft law amending the Law on Narodowy Bank Polski 

Dear Mrs Witek, 

Thank you for your letter of 28 May 2021 requesting an opinion of the European Central Bank (ECB) on a 

draft law amending the Law on Narodowy Bank Polski (hereinafter ‘the draft law’). 

After careful consideration, the ECB has decided not to adopt an opinion in the present case as the draft 

law only touches marginally on the ECB’s fields of competence pursuant to Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with the second and third indents of 
Article 2(1) of Council Decision 98/415/EC2. In reaching its decision not to adopt an opinion, the ECB took 

into particular account that the draft law is of a technical nature, specifying only the entity that will determine 

the rules and procedure for detaining banknotes and coins suspected to be counterfeits and for dealing 

with counterfeit currency, and not such rules and procedures themselves. This draft law does not therefore 

have a major impact on Narodowy Bank Polski.  

Therefore, the ECB has decided on this occasion not to adopt an opinion.  

The ECB appreciates that you have sent the draft law to the ECB for consultation and remains confident 

that the  Speaker of the  Sejm of the Republic of Poland will continue  to consult  the  ECB on future  draft 

legislative provisions that fall within the ECB’s fields of competence under the Treaty on the Functioning of 

the European Union and Council Decision 98/415/EC. 

Yours sincerely, 

[signed] 

Cc: 

Mr Adam Glapiński, Governor, Narodowy Bank Polski  

1  
2  

The official ECB letter is addressed in the official language of the concerned Member State. 
Council Decision 98/415/EC of 29 June 1998 on the consultation of the European Central Bank by national authorities 
regarding draft legislative provisions (OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10289 — PSP/Aviva/10 Station Road) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 262/02
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Canada, France, United Kingdom, economic concentration, insurance, merger control, pension fund, real property








C_2021262EN.01001101.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/11






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10289 — PSP/Aviva/10 Station Road)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 262/02)
On 29 June 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 32021M10289. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-367/21: Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, food substitute, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01003901.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/39






Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)
(Case T-367/21)
(2021/C 329/52)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 210 977

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 2273/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 210 977;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 2273/2020-5 and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation to give reasons for decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.9637 - IAG/AIR EUROPA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 266/02
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: airline, economic concentration, holding company, merger control








C_2021266EN.01000201.xml










6.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.9637 - IAG/AIR EUROPA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 266/02)
On 29 June 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.9637 - IAG / AIR EUROPA, to the following 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10229 – Allianz/Aviva Italia) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 398/04
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control








C_2021398EN.01000501.xml










1.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10229 – Allianz/Aviva Italia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 398/04)
On 29 June 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 32021M10229. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice from the Government of Denmark pursuant to Council Directive 2009/119/EC imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products 2021/C 254/06
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Denmark
Subjects: EU control, diesel fuel, energy supply, gas, minimum stock, petrol, petroleum, security of supply








C_2021254EN.01000601.xml










29.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/6






Notice from the Government of Denmark pursuant to Council Directive 2009/119/EC imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products
(2021/C 254/06)
In accordance with Article 9(4) of the above Directive, Denmark hereby notifies its undertaking to maintain specific stocks.






1.


The level of the specific stocks that Denmark undertakes to maintain is equivalent to 30 days of average daily consumption.










2.


The undertaking applies to the period from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.










3.


The specific stocks will be composed of the following product categories:






—


Motor gasoline










—


Gas/diesel oil














4.


The stocks will be owned and held by the central Danish stockholding entity, Foreningen Danske Olieberedskabslagre (FDO).
Case C-397/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2021 — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, equal treatment, interest, invoicing, tax exemption, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_2021357EN.01001301.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2021 — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-397/21)
(2021/C 357/16)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness and fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and national practice based thereon, pursuant to which, where a taxable person liable for VAT erroneously issues an invoice including VAT in respect of an exempt supply and pays that tax to the Treasury in a provable manner, and the addressee of the invoice pays that VAT to the issuer of the invoice who charged the VAT, the national tax authority does not refund that VAT to either the issuer or the addressee of the invoice?










2.


If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the first question in the affirmative, must the provisions of the VAT Directive, in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness, fiscal neutrality and non-discrimination, be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which, in the situation described in the previous question, the addressee of the invoice is absolutely prohibited from contacting the national tax authority directly in order to request a refund of the VAT or is permitted to do so only if it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim the amount of VAT in question by using another procedure under civil law, particularly where the issuer of the invoice has gone into liquidation in the meantime?










3.


If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the national tax authority under an obligation in those circumstances to pay interest on the VAT to be refunded? If that obligation does exist, what period of time does it cover? Is that obligation subject to the general rules on refunds of VAT?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-359/20 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2021 — Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement — Non-eligible costs — Recovery decision — Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU — Distortion of the facts — Reasonable period of time — Principle of good faith — Legitimate expectations — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU control, EU financing, Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, principle of legal certainty, research and development








C_2021357EN.01000402.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/4






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2021 — Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission
(Case C-359/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - Non-eligible costs - Recovery decision - Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU - Distortion of the facts - Reasonable period of time - Principle of good faith - Legitimate expectations - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
(2021/C 357/05)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis and M. Angelopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and E.A. Stamate, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.










2.


Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020
Special Report No 13/2021 EU efforts to fight money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementation is insufficient 2021/C 254/05
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: banking supervision, fight against crime, financial legislation, financial supervision, financial transaction, money laundering, national implementing measure, regulation of transactions, terrorism financing








C_2021254EN.01000501.xml










29.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/5






Special Report No 13/2021
EU efforts to fight money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementation is insufficient
(2021/C 254/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 13/2021 ‘EU efforts to fight money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementation is insufficient’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case C-37/21: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC
Date: 2021-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic control, airline, carriage of passengers, civil aviation, indemnification








C_2021382EN.01002304.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/23






Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC
(Case C-37/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/32)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.