do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 23 August 2021 2021/C 340/02
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021340EN.01000201.xml










24.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 August 2021
(2021/C 340/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1718 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,02 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85635 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2573 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0744 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4870 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,514 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5868 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9294 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9150 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6311 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4911 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1313 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7063 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5924 




KRW


South Korean won


1 372,54 




ZAR


South African rand


17,8218 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5990 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4958 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 870,30 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9520 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,808 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,8572 




THB


Thai baht


39,091 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2826 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,8334 




INR


Indian rupee


86,9150 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-519/21: Action brought on 24 August 2021 — VY v Commission
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, marriage, survivor's benefit








C_2021422EN.01002502.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/25






Action brought on 24 August 2021 — VY v Commission
(Case T-519/21)
(2021/C 422/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VY (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 25 May 2021;










—


consequently, declare that the complaint lodged is admissible;










—


as regards the substance, annul the decision dated 30 March 2020;










—


consequently, declare that the applicant is entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action against the Commission’s decision refusing to grant her a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, arguing that the complaint of 2 February 2021 is admissible. The applicant submits that the complaint lodged is admissible on the ground that the decision of 30 March 2020 was not an administrative decision that could be the subject of an action and that, consequently, the view could legitimately be taken that it was merely a letter informing her of the steps to be taken following the death of her spouse.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful because it is in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminates on the ground of the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted that article as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in the interpretation of the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the general evolution of European society as regards living together calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the failure to take into account the applicant’s individual situation. In that regard, the applicant submits, first, that she lived with her spouse for more than 32 years, second, they had a child together and, lastly, when her husband’s state of health deteriorated, she was by his side to help him.
Case C-520/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 August 2021 — A.S. v Bank M. SA
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2022064EN.01000802.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 24 August 2021 — A.S. v Bank M. SA
(Case C-520/21)
(2022/C 64/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.S.

Defendant: Bank M. SA

Question referred

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which, where a loan agreement entered into by and between a bank and a consumer is found to have been null and void from the outset because it contains unfair terms, the parties, in addition to the reimbursement of the sums paid in the performance of that agreement (the bank — loan principal, and the consumer — monthly payments, fees, commissions and insurance premiums) and statutory interest for late payment from the date of the demand for payment, may pursue any other claims (including remuneration, compensation, reimbursement of expenses or indexation of the amounts paid) on the grounds that:






1.


the person making the monetary consideration was temporarily deprived of the use of his or her money, so that he or she has lost the opportunity to invest it and thus to make a profit;










2.


the person making the monetary consideration incurred the costs of servicing the loan agreement and of transferring the money to the other party;










3.


the recipient of the monetary consideration had the benefit of being able to temporarily use someone else’s money, including being able to invest it and thus to make a profit;










4.


the recipient of the monetary consideration was temporarily able to use someone else’s money free of charge, which would have been impossible under market conditions;










5.


the purchasing power of the money has decreased with time, which translates to a loss in real terms for the person making the monetary consideration;










6.


the temporary provision of money may be treated as rendering a service for which the person making the monetary consideration has not received remuneration?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-523/21 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-196/20, Chanel v EUIPO — Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, cosmetics industry, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022064EN.01000901.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/9






Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-196/20, Chanel v EUIPO — Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)
(Case C-523/21 P)
(2022/C 64/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, P. Revuelta Martos and I. Temiño Ceniceros, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Chanel
By order of 16 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Case C-522/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2021 — MS v Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, derogation from EU law, industrial property, plant breeding, plant propagation, plant variety right








C_2021513EN.01001701.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2021 — MS v Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
(Case C-522/21)
(2021/C 513/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: MS

Applicant and respondent: Saatgut Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, (1) in so far as a minimum level of compensation of quadruple the licence fee can be claimed under the conditions laid down therein, compatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (‘the Basic Regulation’), (2) in particular with the first sentence of Article 94(2) of that regulation?


(1)  OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14.

(2)  OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Antigua and Barbuda, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national, revision of an agreement








L_2021300EN.01000101.xml










24.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 300/1







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver

The Agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver will enter into force on 1 November 2021, the procedure provided for in Article 2 of the Agreement having been completed on 10 May 2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10415 — Black Diamond/Specialty Chemicals International) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 350/01
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, special chemicals








C_2021350EN.01000101.xml










31.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10415 — Black Diamond/Specialty Chemicals International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 350/01)
On 24 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 32021M10415. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-500/19: Order of the President of the Court of 24 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG v YouTube LLC, Google Austria GmbH
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, audiovisual industry, copyright, injunction, provision of services, search engine, trade intermediary








C_2021471EN.01003101.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/31






Order of the President of the Court of 24 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG v YouTube LLC, Google Austria GmbH
(Case C-500/19) (1)

(2021/C 471/38)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10425 — BCP Dornoch Parent/DexKo) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 348/01
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, supplier, technology, vehicle parts








C_2021348EN.01000101.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10425 — BCP Dornoch Parent/DexKo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 348/01)
On 24 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 32021M10425. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-526/21 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-211/21 Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder v AREB
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Andorra, EU banking union, banking supervision, credit institution, damages, jurisdiction, public institution








C_2022158EN.01000201.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/2






Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-211/21 Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder v AREB

(Case C-526/21 P)
(2022/C 158/02)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellants: Antonius Maria Vervloet, Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder (represented by: P. Van der Veld, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Agència Estatal de Resolució d’Entitats Bancàries (AREB)
By order of 1 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) declares the appeal manifestly inadmissible and Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder are ordered to bear their own costs.