do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-630/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2021 — O.K. v Mercedes-Benz Bank AG
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, termination of a contract








C_2022073EN.01000601.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2021 — O.K. v Mercedes-Benz Bank AG
(Case C-630/21)
(2022/C 73/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: O.K.

Defendant and respondent: Mercedes-Benz Bank AG

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 14 of Directive 2008/48 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the consumer’s right of withdrawal no longer exists if the credit agreement has been fully performed by both parties?










2.


If Question 1. is answered in the negative:
Does Article 14 of Directive 2008/48 preclude a rule in the national law of a Member State which has the effect that the consumer’s right of withdrawal can no longer be exercised if the credit agreement has been fully performed by both parties?










3.


If Question 1. is answered in the negative and Question 2. in the affirmative:
Does Article 14(3) of Directive 2008/48 preclude a rule in the national law of a Member State under which a consumer who has effectively exercised his or her right of withdrawal based on Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48 has a right to have the creditor surrender the benefits that it has derived from the payments that the consumer has made to it up to the time of withdrawal?






(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
Case T-22/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — IB v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension of the invalidity procedure during the disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post — Invalidity procedure which has become devoid of purpose following removal from post — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, pension scheme, termination of employment, worker with disabilities








C_2021490EN.01003401.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/34






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — IB v EUIPO
(Case T-22/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension of the invalidity procedure during the disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post - Invalidity procedure which has become devoid of purpose following removal from post - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Manifest error of assessment)
(2021/C 490/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 14 March 2019 in so far as, first, it removes the applicant from his post without reducing his entitlement to a pension and, second, it definitively closes the applicant’s invalidity procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 March 2019 in so far as it definitively closes IB’s invalidity procedure;










2.


Dismisses the application as to the remainder.










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Decision (EU) 2021/1817 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 13 October 2021 appointing two Judges to the General Court
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2021368EN.01000401.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 368/4








            DECISION (EU) 2021/1817 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 13 October 2021
         
appointing two Judges to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 7 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, following the appointment of Mr Zoltán CSEHI and Ms Octavia SPINEANU-MATEI to the Court of Justice as Judges, two Judges should be appointed to the General Court for the remainder of the terms of office of Mr Zoltán CSEHI and Ms Octavia SPINEANU-MATEI, which run until 31 August 2022.












(2)


Mr Krisztián KECSMÁR and Mr Ion GÂLEA have been nominated for the vacant posts.












(3)


The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of those candidates to perform the duties of Judges of the General Court,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following persons are hereby appointed to the General Court as Judges for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision until 31 August 2022:






—


Mr Krisztián KECSMÁR,










—


Mr Ion GÂLEA.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 13 October 2021.


The President

I. JARC
Case T-523/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Blockchain Island — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, electronic publishing, employment service, legal aid, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003901.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/39






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island)
(Case T-523/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Blockchain Island - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 490/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Setarcos Consulting ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: S. Stafylakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 (Case R 2806/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign Blockchain Island as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Setarcos Consulting ltd. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10450 — CDP/Macquarie/Open Fiber) Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 414/04
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, investment company, management, merger control, mobile communication, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_2021414EN.01000401.xml










13.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10450 — CDP/Macquarie/Open Fiber)
Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 414/04)

1.   
On 4 October 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:






—


Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (‘MIRA’, United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquarie’, Australia),










—


CDP Equity S.p.A. (‘CDPE’, Italy), part of the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (‘CDP’, Italy), ultimately controlled by the Italian State,










—


Open Fiber S.p.A. (‘Open Fiber’, Italy), currently controlled by CDPE and Enel S.p.A. (‘Enel’, Italy).




MIRA and CDPE acquire joint control over Open Fiber within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for MIRA: management of infrastructure and other real assets, including real estate, energy and agriculture as well as critical infrastructure assets such as utilities and telecommunications networks, airports and ports;










—


for CDPE: long-term investor in companies of significant national Italian interest, through direct and indirect shareholdings;










—


for Open Fiber: wholesale-only operator developing, managing and maintaining an optical fibre network, predominantly with FTTH technology, across Italy.






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.



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.10450 — CDP/Macquarie/Open Fiber
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’).
Case T-1/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark INSTINCT — No genuine use of the trade mark — Extent of use — Overall assessment of the evidence — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003201.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/32






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)
(Case T-1/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark INSTINCT - No genuine use of the trade mark - Extent of use - Overall assessment of the evidence - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 490/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebé Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Newman, E. Yates, J.-M. Fearnley, Solicitors, and J. Moss, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 (Case R 178/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case T-733/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT) (EU trade mark — EU word mark BANDIT — Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration — Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — No review — Failure to comply with time limits)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather, protective equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01004201.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/42






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)
(Case T-733/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark BANDIT - Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration - Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty of care - No review - Failure to comply with time limits)
(2021/C 490/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 (Case R 730/2020-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum in relation to the right to apply for renewal of the EU word mark BANDIT.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Case T-429/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021490EN.01003702.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/37






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)
(Case T-429/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ - Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 490/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, N. Gottschalk and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1);










2.


Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;










4.


Orders Mr Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case C-314/20: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — LU v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: domestic market, import, import tax, infringement of EU law, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, used goods, vehicle tax








C_2022002EN.01002501.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/25






Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — LU v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-314/20) (1)

(2022/C 2/31)
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  Date lodged: 9.7.2020.
Case T-732/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL) (EU trade mark — EU word mark CRYSTAL — Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration — Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — No review — Failure to comply with time limits)
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, road safety, sports equipment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle








C_2021490EN.01004101.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/41






Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL)
(Case T-732/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark CRYSTAL - Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration - Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty of care - No review - Failure to comply with time limits)
(2021/C 490/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 (Case R 1056/2020-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum in relation to the right to apply for renewal of the EU word mark CRYSTAL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10395 – BNP PARIBAS / CDC / IMMOBILIÈRE DE LA LAINE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 458/02
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, banking, business lease, economic concentration, merger control, public institution, services of general interest








C_2021458EN.01000201.xml










12.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 458/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10395 – BNP PARIBAS / CDC / IMMOBILIÈRE DE LA LAINE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 458/02)
On 13 October 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 policy’ 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 32021M10395. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 October 2021 2021/C 414/02
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021414EN.01000201.xml










13.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 October 2021
(2021/C 414/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1555 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,06 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4408 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84755 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1078 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0729 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8608 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,376 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,91 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5805 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9499 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,4044 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5660 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4395 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9915 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6591 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5664 




KRW


South Korean won


1 383,40 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2650 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4522 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5155 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 396,85 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8132 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,711 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,0176 




THB


Thai baht


38,501 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3977 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,0232 




INR


Indian rupee


87,2720 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.