do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-459/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, rice, trade-mark law








C_2021382EN.01002901.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/29






Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)
(Case T-459/21)
(2021/C 382/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

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 Sunwhite — Application for registration No 18 115 808

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 in Case R 2465/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration;










—


order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical;










—


The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements;










—


The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs;










—


The Board failed to take sufficient account of the visual difference between the marks and made merely general conclusions in this regard without concrete reasoning.
Case T-460/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, educational institution, gaming establishment, hotel industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2021412EN.01001701.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/17






Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)
(Case T-460/21)
(2021/C 412/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS — Application for registration No 17 867 693

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 908/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867693) to proceed to registration;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs;










—


order C8 to bear its own costs;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.





Pleas in law







—


misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;










—


misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;










—


misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration.
Case T-486/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — OE (*) v Commission
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Internet, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, indemnification, staff regulations (EU)




C_2021422EN.01001901.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/19






Action brought on 3 August 2021 —  OE (*1) v Commission
(Case T-486/21)
(2021/C 422/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OE (*1) (represented by: G. Hervet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:
principally:






—


declare that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations, on which the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 is based, is unlawful;




in the alternative:






—


annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021;




and consequently,






—


order the European Commission to pay  OE (*1) the sum of EUR 51,89 by way of compensation for professional expenses;










—


order the European Commission to provide to  OE (*1) an Internet plan for professional use by whatever means and for any telework situation that may arise;










—


order the European Commission to pay  OE (*1) the sum of EUR 10 000 euros in respect of the damage suffered;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging, principally, that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful and, in the alternative, that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 should be annulled on the ground that that decision is incompatible with the case-law relating to Article 71 of the Staff Regulations. In support of that plea, the applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the duty of sound administration, and that the decision of the Appointing Authority is discriminatory.










2.


Second plea in law, in support of the application for an Internet plan for professional use, alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, in support of the claim for compensation for the damage suffered, alleging that the unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct gives rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10295 — Orange Polska/APG/FiberCo JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 321/01
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications, telecommunications industry








C_2021321EN.01000101.xml










10.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10295 — Orange Polska/APG/FiberCo JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 321/01)
On 3 August 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 32021M10295. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Argentina, GATT, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), revision of an agreement, tariff preference, tariff quota, withdrawal from the EU








L_2021280EN.01000101.xml










3.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 280/1







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (1), signed in Brussels on 10 May 2021, entered into force on 13 July 2021.


(1)  
            OJ L 264, 26.7.2021, p. 3.
Case C-477/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 August 2021 — IH v MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, collective agreement, labour law, weekly rest period, work schedule








C_2021471EN.01001901.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 August 2021 — IH v MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.
(Case C-477/21)
(2021/C 471/27)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Miskolci Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IH

Defendant: MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 5 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, (1) read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period provided for in Article 3 [of that directive] forms part of the weekly rest period?










2.


Otherwise, must Article 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, in accordance with the objective pursued by the directive, the aforementioned article lays down only the minimum duration of the weekly rest period, which is to say that the weekly rest period must be at least 35 consecutive hours’ long, provided that there are no objective, technical or work organisation conditions which preclude this?










3.


Must Article 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where the law of the Member State and the applicable collective agreement provide for the grant of a continuous weekly rest period of at least 42 hours, it is compulsory, following work which has been performed on the working day prior to the weekly rest period, also to grant the twelve-hour daily rest period guaranteed along with it under the relevant legislation of that Member State and the applicable collective agreement, provided that there are no objective, technical or work organisation conditions which preclude this?










4.


Must Article 3 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a worker is entitled to a minimum rest period which must be granted within the course of 24 hours even if, for any reason, he or she does not have to work in the following 24 hours?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative, must Articles 3 and 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period [must] be granted prior to the weekly rest period?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2021/C 311/05
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, glass fibre, import (EU), originating product








C_2021311EN.01000501.xml










3.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/5






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2021/C 311/05)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain continuous filament glass fibre products


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/724 of 24 April 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(OJ L 107, 25.4.2017, p. 4)


26.4.2022






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-480/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2021 — W O, J L v Minister for Justice and Equality
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Poland, access to the courts, appointment of members, extradition, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to justice








C_2021391EN.01001601.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/16






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2021 — W O, J L v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-480/21)
(2021/C 391/23)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: W O, J L

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred







1.


Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in LM (1) and affirmed in L and P (2) where there is a real risk that the appellants will stand trial before courts which are not established by law?










2.


Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in LM and affirmed in L and P where a person seeking to challenge a request under an EAW cannot meet that test by reason of the fact that it is not possible at that point in time to establish the composition of the courts before which they will be tried by reason of the manner in which cases are randomly allocated?










3.


Does the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the validity of the appointment of judges in Poland, in circumstances where it is apparent that the appellants cannot at this point in time establish that the courts before which they will be tried will be composed of judges not validly appointed, amount to a breach of the essence of the right to a fair trial requiring the executing state to refuse the surrender of the appellants?






(1)  Case C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.

(2)  Cases C-354/20 PPU and C-412/20 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1033.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 August 2021 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 August 2021 2021/C 311/04
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2021311EN.01000401.xml










3.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/4






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 August 2021
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 August 2021
(2021/C 311/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1886 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,17 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4381 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85568 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1910 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0761 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4515 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,476 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5562 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9180 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9181 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6141 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4816 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2398 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7041 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6069 




KRW


South Korean won


1 367,67 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0993 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6807 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4963 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 089,57 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0218 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,211 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,4182 




THB


Thai baht


39,152 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1459 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5605 




INR


Indian rupee


88,3960 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-461/21: Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, educational institution, gaming establishment, hotel industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2021412EN.01001801.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/18






Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)
(Case T-461/21)
(2021/C 412/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 — Application for registration No 17 867 689

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 909/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867689) to proceed to registration;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs;










—


order C8 to bear its own costs;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.





Pleas in law







—


misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;










—


misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;










—


misapplication of the principle of interdependence by upholding the opposition and, in consequence, by incorrectly rejecting the sign’s registration.
Case C-479/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2021 — Criminal proceedings against SN and SD. Other parties: Governor of Cloverhill Prison, Ireland, Attorney General, Governor of Mountjoy prison
Date: 2021-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Ireland, United Kingdom, cooperation agreement (EU), trade agreement, withdrawal from the EU








C_2021391EN.01001501.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/15






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2021 — Criminal proceedings against SN and SD. Other parties: Governor of Cloverhill Prison, Ireland, Attorney General, Governor of Mountjoy prison
(Case C-479/21)
(2021/C 391/22)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Criminal proceedings against

SN and SD

Questions referred







1.


Can the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, which provide for the continuance of the EAW (1) regime in respect of the United Kingdom, during the transition period provided for in that agreement, be considered binding on Ireland having regard to its significant AFSJ (2) content; and










2.


Can the provisions of the Agreement on Trade and Cooperation which provide for the continuance of the EAW regime in respect of the United Kingdom after the relevant transition period, be considered binding on Ireland having regard to its significant AFSJ content?






(1)  European Arrest Warrant.

(2)  Area of freedom security and justice.