do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-335/21: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — PJ v EIT
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competence of the institution, interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty, protection of privacy, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), teleworking, work-life balance








C_2021431EN.01005702.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/57






Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — PJ v EIT
(Case T-335/21) (1)

(2021/C 431/69)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.
Case T-523/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Shatrov v Council
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021412EN.01002801.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/28






Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Shatrov v Council
(Case T-523/21)
(2021/C 412/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Alexander Evgenevich Shatrov (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges manifest error of assessment. In particular, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.
Infographics on social security coordination based on statistical reports : Hungary 2019.
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: Hungary, application of the law, family, health care, pension scheme, social security, social statistics, unemployment

Applicable legislation

71,095
Portable 
Documents A1 
issued

To persons active in 
two or more Member 
States according to 
Art. 13 BR

57,454

13,187

454454

To other categories

To posted workers 
according to 
Art. 12 BR

Cross-border healthcare
cross-border health

nplanned necessary

U

1,439,277
EHIC’s 
in circulation 

34.7%
of the Hungarian 
population has 
an EHIC

c
a
r
e

Planned cross-border healthcare

275 
persons 
received planned 
healthcare in another 
Member State on the 
basis of a Portable 
Document S2 

Unemployment

25
authorisations 
issued to export 
the unemployment 
beneﬁt to another 
Member State

0.02%
of unemployed 
persons exported 
their unemployment 
beneﬁt to another 
Member State

3,252
certiﬁcates proving 
periods of insurance or 
(self-)employment completed 
in other Member States 
taken into account for 
the acquisition of an 
unemployment 
beneﬁt 

1.9%
of unemployed 
persons needed 
aggregated 
periods

N
-
N
E
-
8
4
0
-
1
2
-
8
0
-
E
K

/

3
5
0
1
4
4
7
6
7
2
0
1

.

:
i

o
d

8
-
5
1
0
3
3
-
6
7
-
2
9
-
8
7
9
N
B
S

I

F
D
P

Healthcare provided to  persons residing in a

12,088 
persons 
are insured 
in Hungary and 
reside in another 
Member State

67,680 
persons 
reside in Hungary 
and are insured 
in another 
Member State

Member State other   than the competent o

e
n

Pensions

29,419
pensions 
paid to beneﬁciaries 
who reside in 
another 
Member State 

1.4%
of the
beneﬁciaries 
reside in another 
Member State

€ 45.1 million
paid to 
beneﬁciaries 
who reside in 
another 
Member State

0.5%
of total expenditure 
paid to beneﬁciaries 
who reside 
in another 
Member State

Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 2021
© European Union, 2021 - This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reﬂects the views only of the authors who prepared the statistical reports in the framework of Contract No VC/2017/0463 (see europa.eu/!Qr66ur). The Commission cannot be held 
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.  The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. Reuse of this document is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are 
indicated (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective right holders. All images © European Union, unless otherwise stated.

Hungary2019
Case T-526/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2021422EN.01002701.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/27






Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council
(Case T-526/21)
(2021/C 422/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul (i) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3), insofar as they apply to the applicant (together, the ‘Contested Acts’);










—


declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the Applicant, the Contested Acts.





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 that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in the contested measures is satisfied.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, defence, property and freedom to conduct business.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging illegality if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit.
Case T-528/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Neratax v EUIPO — Piraeus Bank and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT)
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, food substitute, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021462EN.01004601.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/46






Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Neratax v EUIPO — Piraeus Bank and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT)
(Case T-528/21)
(2021/C 462/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Neratax LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Katsavos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piraeus Bank SA (Athens, Greece), National Bank of Greece (Athens), Eurobank Ergasias SA (Athens)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade marks at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade marks at issue: European Union word marks ELLO, MORFAT and European Union figurative marks ELLO ERMOL, Ello Creamy, MORFAT Creamy — European Union trade marks Nos 12 549 499 (ELLO), 12 549 821 (MORFAT), 14 715 783 (ELLO ERMOL), 14 722 243 (Ello creamy), 14 715 726 (MORFAT Creamy)

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decisions: Decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Cases R 1295/2020-4, R 1296/2020-4, R 1298/2020-4, R 1299/2020-4, R 1302/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


legally cancel, revoke and annul the contested decisions;










—


for the rightful ownership of the trademarks of the application to be upheld and recognized as the applicant’s intellectual property;










—


order the opposing parties to pay the costs incurred in the course of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 101 to 106 TFEU;










—


Infringement of Articles 19 to 29 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of recital 7 and Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-692/19: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — Rentokil Initial and Rentokil Initial 1927 v Commission
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, group of companies, interest, reimbursement of aid, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2021462EN.01006001.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/60






Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — Rentokil Initial and Rentokil Initial 1927 v Commission
(Case T-692/19) (1)

(2021/C 462/75)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 August 2021 2021/C 344/03
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021344EN.01000301.xml










27.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 August 2021
(2021/C 344/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1767 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,60 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4366 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85718 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2413 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0789 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3615 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,546 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,18 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5779 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9318 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,8450 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6206 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4838 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1625 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6882 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5920 




KRW


South Korean won


1 373,36 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5420 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6285 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4885 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 996,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9363 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,803 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,0756 




THB


Thai baht


38,525 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1506 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9001 




INR


Indian rupee


87,2340 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Communication from the Commission establishing formal recognition that a certain number of acts of Union law in the area of food safety, animal health and animal welfare rules have become obsolete 2021/C 344/01
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: Community acquis, decision (EU), foodstuffs legislation, repeal, veterinary legislation








C_2021344EN.01000101.xml










27.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/1






Communication from the Commission establishing formal recognition that a certain number of acts of Union law in the area of food safety, animal health and animal welfare rules have become obsolete
(2021/C 344/01)

List of acts to be removed from the active acquis


(Guidelines laying down criteria for the conduct of audits)

Commission Decision 2006/677/EC
(OJ L 278, 10.10.2006, p. 15)

(Guidelines to assist Member States in preparing the single integrated multi-annual national control plan)

Commission Decision 2007/363/EC
(OJ L 138, 30.5.2007, p. 24)

(Guidelines to assist Member States in preparing the annual report on the single integrated multi-annual national control plan)

Commission Decision 2008/654/EC
(OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 56)

(List of national reference laboratories for the detection of residues)

Commission Decision 98/536/EC
(OJ L 251, 11.9.1998, p. 39)
Case T-492/19: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — GlaxoSmithKline Finance and Setfirst v Commission
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, foreign enterprise, group of companies, parent company, right of establishment, tax avoidance, tax exemption








C_2021422EN.01003803.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/38






Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — GlaxoSmithKline Finance and Setfirst v Commission
(Case T-492/19) (1)

(2021/C 422/52)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case T-470/19: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — Essentra and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, group of companies, right of establishment, tax avoidance, tax exemption








C_2021462EN.01005902.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/59






Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — Essentra and Others v Commission
(Case T-470/19) (1)

(2021/C 462/73)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case T-524/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Saure v Commission
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, coronavirus disease, disclosure of information, epidemic, equal treatment, provision of documents, public health, vaccine








C_2021412EN.01002802.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/28






Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Saure v Commission
(Case T-524/21)
(2021/C 412/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2021 to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the European Commission documents at issue pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision.










2.


Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The pending proceedings in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021. The conditions for infringing the principles of equality of arms and sound administration of justice are not fulfilled either, since any proceedings that might be affected have already been disposed of.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10402 — Blackstone/GTCR/Campaign Parent) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 352/03
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control, parent company, software, subsidiary, technology








C_2021352EN.01000301.xml










2.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10402 — Blackstone/GTCR/Campaign Parent)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 352/03)
On 27 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 32021M10402. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-525/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — E. Breuninger v Commission
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, business activity, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, restriction on competition








C_2021431EN.01004601.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/46






Action brought on 27 August 2021 — E. Breuninger v Commission
(Case T-525/21)
(2021/C 431/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: M. Vetter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 264(1) TFEU, the defendant’s decision of 28 May 2021 (State aid No SA.62784);










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment
The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining, by the contested decision, that the German State aid ‘Allgemeine Bundesregelung Schadensausgleich, COVID-19’ (General Federal Scheme for Compensation, Covid-19) is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. The applicant claims that restricting the eligibility of undertakings with several business activities to those which achieve at least 80 % of their turnover from activities directly affected by the lockdown is arbitrary and that the approval of the aid scheme is disproportionate. According to the applicant, the 80 % threshold removes, without any objective reason, the causal link between the closure orders and the damage resulting therefrom to the detriment of undertakings with several business areas, since such undertakings might remain entirely without compensation despite being directly and significantly affected by the State measures and the considerable losses associated therewith. This leads to a distortion of competition, both in relation to competitors in business areas that were affected by Covid-19 and in relation to those in business areas that were not affected by Covid-19.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU
The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision is vitiated by a failure to conduct a proper examination and a failure to state reasons. The defendant failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to raise concerns in respect of the compatibility of the aid scheme with the internal market during the preliminary investigation procedure. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision to approve the aid scheme.
Case T-12/21: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — PJ v EIT
Date: 2021-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, protection of privacy, staff regulations (EU), teleworking








C_2021431EN.01005701.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/57






Order of the General Court of 27 August 2021 — PJ v EIT
(Case T-12/21) (1)

(2021/C 431/68)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.