do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-566/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 September 2021 — AA v Banca S
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, foreign currency, unfair terms of contract








C_2022002EN.01002002.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 September 2021 — AA v Banca S
(Case C-566/21)
(2022/C 2/25)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant and defendant at first instance: S

Respondent and applicant at first instance: AA

Question referred

Does Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice, allow a term to be altered in such a way that the purely potestative right of the seller or supplier to convert the currency of the credit agreement in fact constitutes an obligation on the seller or supplier if that alteration is entirely to the benefit of the consumer and the mere removal of the unfair term from the agreement is of no benefit to him or her?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-562/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 September 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against X, Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, access to the courts, appeal, enforcement of ruling, imprisonment, right to justice








C_2022002EN.01001901.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 September 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against X, Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-562/21)
(2022/C 2/23)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


European arrest warrant issued against: X

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

What test should an executing judicial authority apply when deciding whether to execute an EAW for the purpose of executing a final custodial sentence or detention order when examining whether, in the issuing Member State, the trial resulting in the conviction was conducted in breach of the right to a tribunal previously established by law, where no effective remedy was available in that Member State for any breach of that right?
Case T-573/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Brand Energy Holdings v EUIPO (RAPIDGUARD)
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, metal product, metals, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021431EN.01005601.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/56






Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Brand Energy Holdings v EUIPO (RAPIDGUARD)
(Case T-573/21)
(2021/C 431/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Brand Energy Holdings BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Hönninger and F. Dechent, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark RAPIDGUARD — Application for registration No 18 156 550

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2021 in Case R 294/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 42(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 42(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c), Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-574/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021462EN.01004901.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/49






Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)
(Case T-574/21)
(2021/C 462/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Santos (Vaulx-en-Velin, France) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark, claiming the colours Pantone Yellow 1235C, NCS Green S 30 50 G 50 Y (Shape of a citrus press) — Application for registration No 18 005 754

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 281/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Notice of open competition (Official Journal of the European Union C 363 of 9 September 2021) 2021/C 369/03
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), data protection, job vacancy, personal data, recruitment








C_2021369EN.01001301.xml










14.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/13






Corrigendum to Notice of open competition

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 363 of 9 September 2021
)

(2021/C 369/03)
On page 2:
for:

‘The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union C … A of 9 September 2021.’,

read:

‘The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 363 A of 9 September 2021.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10244 — Vodafone Group/Safaricom/Sumitomo/Ethiopia JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 383/02
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications, telecommunications industry








C_2021383EN.01000201.xml










21.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10244 — Vodafone Group/Safaricom/Sumitomo/Ethiopia JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 383/02)
On 14 September 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 32021M10244. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-722/20: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2021 — Far Polymers and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Lack of direct concern — Lack of individual concern — Legislative act involving implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, admissibility, anti-dumping duty, chemical alcohol, import (EU), originating product








C_2021462EN.01004401.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/44






Order of the General Court of 14 September 2021 — Far Polymers and Others v Commission
(Case T-722/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Lack of direct concern - Lack of individual concern - Legislative act involving implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 462/52)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Far Polymers Srl (Filago, Italy), Gamma Chimica SpA (Milan, Italy), Carbochem Srl (Castiglione Olona, Italy), Jeniuschem Srl (Gallarate, Italy) (represented by: G. Abbatescianni and E. Patti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, F. Tomat, M. Gustafsson and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 315, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by Kuraray Europe GmbH, Sekisui Specialty Chemicals Europe SL and Wegochem Europe BV;










3.


Far Polymers Srl, Gamma Chimica SpA, Carbochem Srl and Jeniuschem Srl shall pay the costs, except for those relating to the applications to intervene;










4.


Far Polymers, Gamma Chimica, Carbochem, Jeniuschem, the European Commission, Kuraray Europe, Sekisui Specialty Chemicals Europe and Wegochem Europe shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case C-564/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2021 — BU v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, competence of the institution, disclosure of information, electronic document, foreign national, provision of documents, right of asylum, right to information, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01001401.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2021 — BU v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-564/21)
(2022/C 11/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BU

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

Questions referred







1.


Does it follow from the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter that the administrative file to be submitted by the authority in the context of an inspection of files or a judicial review is to be submitted in such a way — even where it is in electronic form — that it is complete and paginated, and changes are therefore traceable?










2.


Do Articles 23(1) and 46(1) to (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (1) preclude a national administrative practice according to which, as a general rule, the authority provides the asylum seeker’s legal representative and the court with only an extract taken from an electronic document management system and containing an incomplete, unstructured and non-chronological collection of electronic PDF files, whereby the latter do not have a structure or set out the sequence of events in chronological order, let alone reflect the complete content of the electronic file.










3.


Does it follow from Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU that a decision must be signed by hand by the decision-maker of the determining authority, kept on file or served on the applicant also as a document signed by hand?










4.


Is the handwritten form within the meaning of Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU respected where the decision is signed by the decision-maker but then scanned and the original destroyed, that is to say, the decision exists in writing only to a certain extent?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
Case C-563/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 September 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against Y, Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Poland, extradition, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to justice








C_2022002EN.01002001.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 September 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against Y, Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-563/21)
(2022/C 2/24)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


European arrest warrant issued against: Y

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred







1.


Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in the judgment in Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice) (1) and affirmed in the judgment in Openbaar Ministerie (Independence of the issuing judicial authority), (2) where there is a real risk that the person concerned will stand trial before a court not previously established by law?










2.


Is it appropriate to apply the test set out in the judgment in Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice) and affirmed in the judgment in Openbaar Ministerie (Independence of the issuing judicial authority) where the requested person seeking to challenge his surrender cannot meet that test by reason of the fact that it is not possible at that point in time to establish the composition of the courts before which he will be tried by reason of the manner in which cases are randomly allocated?










3.


Does the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the validity of the appointment of judges in Poland, in circumstances where it is apparent that the requested person cannot at this point in time establish that the courts before which he will be tried will be composed of judges not validly appointed, amount to a breach of the essence of the right to a fair trial, thus requiring the executing judicial authority to refuse the surrender of the requested person?






(1)  Case C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.

(2)  Cases C-354/20 PPU and C-412/20 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1033.
Case T-590/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Guangdong Camel Apparel v EUIPO — Worldwide Brands (CAMEL CROWN)
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal skin, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021462EN.01005401.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/54






Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Guangdong Camel Apparel v EUIPO — Worldwide Brands (CAMEL CROWN)
(Case T-590/21)
(2021/C 462/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Guangdong Camel Apparel Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and F. Codevelle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CAMEL CROWN — Application for registration No 17 882 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 159/2020-5 and R 184/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


upheld the appeal;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, by reason of the erroneous assessment of the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 September 2021 2021/C 369/01
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021369EN.01000101.xml










14.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 September 2021
(2021/C 369/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1780 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,62 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85120 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1853 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0873 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1885 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,348 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,58 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5518 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9453 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9468 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6015 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4931 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1641 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6575 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5821 




KRW


South Korean won


1 383,74 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7103 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6059 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4775 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 787,94 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8893 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,819 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,8875 




THB


Thai baht


38,762 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1563 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4010 




INR


Indian rupee


86,8440 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 September 2021 on the draft Council decision on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union including relations between the European Union on the one hand, and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other (Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland) (08656/2021 — C9-0189/2021 — 2018/0244(CNS))
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Development, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on Fisheries, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, Greenland, cooperation policy, development aid, financial aid, overseas countries and territories, sustainable development








C_2022117EN.01019101.xml










11.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 117/191






P9_TA(2021)0365
Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 September 2021 on the draft Council decision on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union including relations between the European Union on the one hand, and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other (Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland) (08656/2021 — C9-0189/2021 — 2018/0244(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2022/C 117/21)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (08656/2021),










—


having regard to Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0189/2021),










—


having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A9-0244/2021),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Case T-603/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, competition (EU), data protection, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification, personal data, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2021513EN.01002902.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/29






Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO
(Case T-603/21)
(2021/C 513/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WO (represented by: V. Vitkovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


under Article 270 TFEU, annul the unfounded and illegal decision 028/2021 of the EPPO College on the rejection of the applicant’s candidacy for the function of European Delegated Prosecutor;










—


order the EPPO to pay the applicant compensation for the violation of his personal data protection, the unfair appointment proceedings and the illegal decision to reject his candidacy to the post of European Delegated Prosecutor.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based only on presumptions and lacks proper reasoning.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that fictitious information concerning the applicant is contained in the contested decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on illegally obtained personal data relating to the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s personal data have been violated by the EPPO, including in relation to some data in the decision.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is linked to and based upon the disciplinary sanction, applied to the applicant more than fifteen years ago. There is no legal system and/or act in the European Union that allows administrative offences/disciplinary misconduct to be considered as relevant after fifteen years have passed.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments provided by the applicant were taken into account. They were ignored.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the appointment procedure has been violated by applying to the applicant additional criteria and by assessing him over a longer period, compared to the other nominees. Thus, the principle of the equal treatment of all nominees was violated.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that a non-existing legal act was applied to the applicant in the context of the rejection of his candidacy.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the principle of sincere cooperation between the Member State and the EU institution was also violated by the EPPO. The opinion of the Member State institution that nominated the person to the post of the European Delegated Prosecutor was ignored. The EPPO, it is argued, also improperly reassessed the nominated person’s eligibility criteria.