do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-544/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ID v Stadt Mainz
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, direct applicability, engineer, minimum price, provision of services, remuneration of work, right of establishment, town-planning profession








C_2022002EN.01001701.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — ID v Stadt Mainz
(Case C-544/21)
(2022/C 2/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ID

Defendant: Stadt Mainz

Questions referred







1.


Does it follow from EU law, in particular from Article 4(3) TEU, the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 260(1) TFEU, that, in the context of ongoing court proceedings between private persons, Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (‘the Services Directive’) has direct effect in such a way that the national provisions contrary to that directive that are contained in Paragraph 4 of the German Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Decree on fees for services provided by architects and engineers) of 1996, as amended in 2002 (‘the 2002 HOAI’), pursuant to which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, are no longer to be applied, even in the case of claims arising from an architect’s contract concluded in 2004, that is to say, prior to the adoption of the Services Directive?










2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:





(a)


Is Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 TEC) to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Paragraph 4 of the 2002 HOAI, under which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, is precluded by, or constitutes an infringement of, that article?










(b)


If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: does it follow from such an infringement that the national rules on mandatory minimum rates (in this case: Paragraph 4 of the 2002 HOAI) are no longer to be applied in ongoing court proceedings between private persons?










(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
Case T-531/21: Action brought on 31 August 2021 — QN v Commission
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, indemnification, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021462EN.01004701.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/47






Action brought on 31 August 2021 — QN v Commission
(Case T-531/21)
(2021/C 462/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: QN (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant, which results from the publication on 12 November 2020 of Administrative Notice No 32-2020 closing the 2020 promotion exercise and presenting a promotion list on which the applicant’s name does not appear;










—


annul also, in so far as necessary, the decision of 1 June 2021 taken by the defendant, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the non–promotion decision;










—


order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant, pursuant to Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to produce an anonymised copy of the minutes of the meeting with the Joint Promotion Committee and of the minutes of the meeting between the representatives of the Central Staff Committee and the Director general of DG TAXUD,










—


order the defendant to pay all 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 infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 4(1) of Commission decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment — Breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU — Infringement of the rules of objectivity and impartiality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons — Breach of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU together with a breach of Article 296(2) of the TFEU.
Case T-533/21: Action brought on 31 august 2021 — Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, right to justice








C_2021422EN.01003101.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/31






Action brought on 31 august 2021 — Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council
(Case T-533/21)
(2021/C 422/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OAO Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding (Zhodino, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul 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 (1), and 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 (2) (‘Contested Measures’), as far as they concern the applicant; and










—


order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.





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 Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued to this end that since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘BELAZ’ — Management Company of Holding ‘BELAZHOLDING’. By referring to Belarusski Avtomobilnyi Zavod (BelAZ) / OJSC ‘BELAZ’, a name that the applicant never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made a manifest error of assessment by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures. The applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for its designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council has applied an unlawful type of measure.






(1)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70.
Case C-546/21 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2021 by the Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-42/21 Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v European Parliament
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, illegal abortion, lawyer, legal aid, non-governmental organisation








C_2023261EN.01000201.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/2






Appeal brought on 31 August 2021 by the Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-42/21 Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v European Parliament
(Case C-546/21 P)
(2023/C 261/02)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (represented by: K. Koźmiński, legal advisor, T. Siemiński, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
By order of 15 February 2023, the Court (Second Chamber) set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2021, Fundację Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament (T-42/21, not published, EU:T:2021:385), and referred the case back to the General Court of the European Union.
Case T-535/21: Action brought on 31 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, toy industry








C_2021431EN.01004801.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/48






Action brought on 31 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)
(Case T-535/21)
(2021/C 431/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0009

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2021 in Case R 1004/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision to:






—


allow the applicant’s appeal,










—


dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 297 to declare the contested design invalid,










—


order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;














—


order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);










—


Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);










—


Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010.
Case T-532/21: Action brought on 31 august 2021 — MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, right to justice








C_2021422EN.01003001.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/30






Action brought on 31 august 2021 — MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council
(Case T-532/21)
(2021/C 422/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OAO Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod — upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul 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 (1), and 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 (2) (‘Contested Measures’), as far as they concern the applicant; and










—


order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.





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 Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued that by not sending an individual notification to inform of the measures taken against the applicant, the Council breached Article 8a (2) of Council Regulation 765/2006. Further, since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘Minsk Automobile Works’ — Management Company of ‘BELAVTOMAZ’ Holding. By referring to Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod (MAZ) / OJSC ‘MAZ’, a name that the applicant has never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made a manifest error of assessment by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures. The applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for its designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council has applied an unlawful type of measure.






(1)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 August 2021 2021/C 350/03
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021350EN.01000301.xml










31.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 August 2021
(2021/C 350/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1801 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,66 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85748 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1813 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0798 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2395 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,566 




HUF


Hungarian forint


348,30 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5678 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9343 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,8909 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6167 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4867 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1891 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6844 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5881 




KRW


South Korean won


1 375,03 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2578 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6347 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4935 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 916,81 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9057 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,786 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7119 




THB


Thai baht


38,271 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1529 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,8273 




INR


Indian rupee


86,5035 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-543/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer information, glass, labelling, packaging product, publishing of prices, selling price








C_2021490EN.01002101.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-543/21)
(2021/C 490/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


Is the concept of ‘selling price’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it must include the deposit payable by the consumer when purchasing goods in bottles or jars which are returnable against a deposit?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Are the Member States authorised under Article 10 of Directive 98/6/EC to maintain a provision which deviates from Article 3(1) and (4) of Directive 98/6/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, such as that in Paragraph 1(4) of the Preisangabenverordnung (Regulation on the indication of prices), in accordance with which, where a refundable security deposit is required in addition to the consideration for a product, the amount of that security deposit must be indicated in addition to the price for the product, and a total amount must not be formed, or does the approach of full harmonisation pursued by Directive 2005/29/EC (2) preclude that?






(1)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
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 Republic of Indonesia 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: 2021-08-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: GATT, Indonesia, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), revision of an agreement, tariff preference, tariff quota, withdrawal from the EU








L_2021306EN.01000101.xml










31.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 306/1







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 Republic of Indonesia 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 Republic of Indonesia 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 11 May 2021, entered into force on 20 August 2021.


(1)  
            OJ L 260, 21.7.2021, p. 3.