do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 19 August 2021 2021/C 334/03
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021334EN.01000701.xml










20.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 334/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 August 2021
(2021/C 334/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1696 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,21 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85523 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2798 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0723 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5450 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,501 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,98 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5832 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9295 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9731 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6319 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4919 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1121 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7101 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5942 




KRW


South Korean won


1 375,34 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7504 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5901 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5028 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 922,07 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9573 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,084 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7175 




THB


Thai baht


38,994 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3662 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5852 




INR


Indian rupee


86,9975 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-517/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 20 August 2021 — Laudamotion GmbH v TG, QN, AirHelp Germany GmbH
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2021471EN.01002701.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 20 August 2021 — Laudamotion GmbH v TG, QN, AirHelp Germany GmbH
(Case C-517/21)
(2021/C 471/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Laudamotion GmbH

Defendants: TG, QN, AirHelp Germany GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the regulation applies to a passenger who checks in online but does not present himself or herself at the check-in counter at the times specified in that provision?










2.


Taking into account the judgment in Sturgeon and Others, (2) is Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004, in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that — where the operating air carrier cannot avoid liability, as provided for in Article 5(3) of that regulation — the passenger has the right to compensation if:






—


the flight is delayed in arriving at the final destination by at least three hours,










—


it was already apparent prior to boarding that the flight would reach its final destination with a delay of at least three hours, and










—


the passenger did not appear for the boarding of that flight?




If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:










3.


Is this also the case where the passenger, without the involvement of the operating air carrier, books an alternative flight with which he or she reaches another airport serving the same city or region (Article 8(3) of Regulation No 261/2004) as his or her originally booked flight only slightly later than he or she would have reached the final destination of that flight as scheduled?
If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:










4.


Is this also the case where the passenger, at his or her request, is rebooked by the operating air carrier onto an alternative flight with which he or she reaches his or her final destination earlier than he or she would have with the delayed originally booked flight, but nevertheless later than he or she would have with the flight originally booked had it been on schedule (and the flight onto which the passenger was rebooked does not itself have a ‘long delay’)?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 19 November 2009, C-402/07 and C-432/07, EU:C:2009:716.
Case T-224/21: Order of the General Court of 20 August 2021 — PepsiCo v EUIPO (Smartfood) (EU trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, maize, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021462EN.01004402.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/44






Order of the General Court of 20 August 2021 — PepsiCo v EUIPO (Smartfood)
(Case T-224/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 462/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (Raleigh, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 (Case R 1947/2020-4) concerning the application for registration of the figurative mark in colour Smartfood.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


PepsiCo, Inc. shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2021/C 334 I/01
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU Member State, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








CI2021334EN.01000101.xml










20.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 334/1






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2021/C 334 I/01)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


24.7.2021 at 24:00 UTC




Duration


24.7.2021 at 24:00 UTC - 31.12.2021




Member State


European Union (All Member States)




Stock or Group of stocks


RED/N3M.




Species


Redfishes (Sebastes spp.)




Zone


NAFO 3M




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


14/TQ92






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-512/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES)
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, economic survey, registered trade mark, sales promotion, trade-mark law








C_2021412EN.01002601.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/26






Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES)
(Case T-512/21)
(2021/C 412/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Epsilon Data Management LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Lindemans and J. Bussé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Epsilon Technologies, SL (Sant Cugat del Valles, Spain)

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 figurative mark EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES — European Union trade mark No 8 914 855

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 1611/2020-5 and R 1839/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;










—


uphold the application, annul and set aside the contested decision and order the revocation of the contested EUTM No 8 914 855 due to non-use;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


No genuine use of the contested EUTM is established (Articles 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council).
Case T-517/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Grieger v Commission
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, manager, pension scheme, reassignment








C_2021422EN.01002501.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/25






Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Grieger v Commission
(Case T-517/21)
(2021/C 422/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vladimir Grieger (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 29 October 2020;










—


annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 11 May 2021 rejecting the complaint;










—


order the administration to pay the applicant financial compensation equivalent to the management allowance which he would have received from the month following the submission of his transfer request (namely from 1 August 2020);










—


order the administration to compensate the effects of that illegality on the applicant’s pension rights, namely the difference between his actual pension and the pension which he claims he would have been entitled to by reference to his last basic salary including the management allowance;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of 29 October 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request to be transferred to a senior management position, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the priority principle and of the commitments made by the Appointing Authority in the decision of 30 March 2015 to make the applicant available to the Support Group for Ukraine (SGUA).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the applicant’s legitimate expectations, his acquired rights and the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
Case C-518/21 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2021 by FT and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2021 in Case T-699/19 FT and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, pay, posted worker, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law, staff regulations (EU), third country, wage determination








C_2022119EN.01001801.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/18






Appeal brought on 20 August 2021 by FT and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2021 in Case T-699/19 FT and Others v Commission
(Case C-518/21 P)
(2022/C 119/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: FT, FU, FV, FY, FZ, GA, GB, GC, GD, GG, GE, GF, GH, GI, GJ, GK, GL, GM, GN, GO, GP, GQ, GR, GS, GT, GU (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Case C-516/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2021 — Finanzamt X v Y
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, lease, machinery, rental business, tax exemption, tax law








C_2022095EN.01000601.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2021 — Finanzamt X v Y
(Case C-516/21)
(2022/C 95/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: Finanzamt X

Applicant: Y

Question referred

Does the tax liability for the leasing of permanently installed equipment and machinery pursuant to Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (‘the VAT Directive’) cover






—


only the isolated (independent) leasing of such equipment and machinery or also










—


the leasing (letting) of such equipment and machinery which is exempt by virtue of (and as a supply ancillary to) a letting of a building, effected between the same parties, pursuant to Article 135(1)(l) of the VAT Directive?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1405 of 20 August 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Vanille de l’île de La Réunion’ (PGI)
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: France, Réunion, aromatic plant, designation of origin, flavouring, labelling, product designation








L_2021303EN.01000301.xml










27.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 303/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1405
of 20 August 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Vanille de l’île de La Réunion’ (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, France’s application to register the name ‘Vanille de l’île de La Réunion’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Vanille de l’île de La Réunion’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Vanille de l’île de La Réunion’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. – other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices etc.), 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, 20 August 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 170, 6.5.2021, p. 13.

(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).
Case T-515/21: Action brought on 20 August 2021– Zeta farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01002401.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/24






Action brought on 20 August 2021– Zeta farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)
(Case T-515/21)
(2021/C 422/32)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Zeta farmaceutici SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Specchiasol Srl (Bussolengo, Italy)

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 EUPHYTOS — European Union trade mark No 6 316 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June in Case R 2094/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision and find and declare the contested mark, namely European Union trade mark No 6 316 541, invalid;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal, ordering it to comply with the findings of the Court when issuing its new decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


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