do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-790/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov v LG, MH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Directive 2005/60/EC — Offence of money laundering — Laundering by the perpetrator of the predicate offence (‘self-laundering’))
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: money laundering, offence








C_2021431EN.01002102.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/21






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov v LG, MH
(Case C-790/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Directive 2005/60/EC - Offence of money laundering - Laundering by the perpetrator of the predicate offence (‘self-laundering’))
(2021/C 431/21)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Braşov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov

Defendants: LG, MH

Intervener: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the offence of money laundering, within the meaning of that provision, may be committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity from which the money concerned was derived.


(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case T-547/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wastewater, water treatment








C_2021422EN.01003501.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/35






Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)
(Case T-547/21)
(2021/C 422/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1545/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No 12 313 797 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (word) against the classes 11 and 40;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 18 and 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-543/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01003401.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/34






Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)
(Case T-543/21)
(2021/C 422/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Purasac Co. Ltd (Anyang-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (Aurora, Ontario, Canada)

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 Rejeunesse — Application for registration No 18 117 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2021 in Case R 146/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks.
Case C-741/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy Charter Treaty — Article 26 — Inapplicability between Member States — Arbitration Award — Judicial review — Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State — Dispute between a third-State operator and a third State — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty — Concept of ‘investment’)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Energy Charter, claim, commercial arbitration, electricity supply, investment, judicial review, jurisdiction, third country








C_2021431EN.01002101.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/21






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians
(Case C-741/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 26 - Inapplicability between Member States - Arbitration Award - Judicial review - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Dispute between a third-State operator and a third State - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty - Concept of ‘investment’)
(2021/C 431/20)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Republic of Moldova

Defendant: Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(6) and Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty, signed at Lisbon on 17 December 1994, approved on behalf of the European Communities by Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 23 September 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition, by an undertaking of a Contracting Party to that treaty, of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity, which is not connected with an investment, held by an undertaking of a third State against a public undertaking of another Contracting Party to that treaty, does not constitute an ‘investment’ within the meaning of those provisions.


(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case C-854/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Vodafone GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 — Article 3 — Open internet access — Article 3(1) — End users’ rights — Article 3(2) — Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights — Article 3(3) — Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic — Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures — Additional ‘zero tariff’ option — ‘Zero tariff’ excluded in the case of roaming)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, consumer protection, mobile phone, postal and telecommunications services, price regulations, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, retail price, roaming, telephone charges








C_2021431EN.01002301.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/23






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Vodafone GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen
(Case C-854/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - ‘Zero tariff’ excluded in the case of roaming)
(2021/C 431/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on use when roaming, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).


(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case T-545/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, toy industry








C_2021431EN.01005101.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/51






Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)
(Case T-545/21)
(2021/C 431/59)
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 1 431 829-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2021 in Case R 1011/2018-3

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 10 306 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10386 – BC Partners/Valtech) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 352/09
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, consultancy, economic concentration, information technology, information technology applications, investment company, merger control, public relations








C_2021352EN.01000901.xml










2.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10386 – BC Partners/Valtech)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 352/09)

1.   
On 26 August 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


BC Partners LLP (‘BC Partners’, United Kingdom),










—


Valtech SE (‘Valtech’, Luxembourg).




BC Partners acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Valtech. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for BC Partners: international investment firm providing advisory services to financial investors,










—


for Valtech: global business transformation agency providing strategy consulting, service design, technology services and optimisation of digital platforms for multichannel commerce and marketing.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10386 – BC Partners/Valtech
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-379/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — B v Udlændingenævnet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — Standstill clause — New restriction — Family reunification of minor children of Turkish workers — Age condition — Requirement of compelling reasons in order to be granted family reunification — Overriding reason in the public interest — Successful integration — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), child, family reunification, integration of migrants, migrant worker, national, residence permit








C_2021462EN.01002202.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/22






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — B v Udlændingenævnet
(Case C-379/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - New restriction - Family reunification of minor children of Turkish workers - Age condition - Requirement of compelling reasons in order to be granted family reunification - Overriding reason in the public interest - Successful integration - Proportionality)
(2021/C 462/23)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B

Defendant: Udlændingenævnet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure lowering from 18 to 15 years the age below which the child of a Turkish worker residing legally in the territory of the host Member State may submit an application for family reunification constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction may, however, be justified by the objective of ensuring the successful integration of the third-country nationals concerned, on condition that the detailed rules for its implementation do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.


(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
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 September 2021 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 September 2021 2021/C 352/05
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2021352EN.01000501.xml










2.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/5






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

1 September 2021
(2021/C 352/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1817 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,35 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85863 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1961 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0845 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2633 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,406 




HUF


Hungarian forint


348,03 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5078 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9346 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,7985 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6088 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4879 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1907 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6776 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5916 




KRW


South Korean won


1 369,25 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0532 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6421 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4900 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 872,69 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9085 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,163 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,3373 




THB


Thai baht


38,204 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0886 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6484 




INR


Indian rupee


86,3480 






(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.