do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-708/20: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electric vehicle, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2021513EN.01003702.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/37






Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)
(Case T-708/20) (1)

(2021/C 513/55)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 October 2021 2021/C 435/01
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021435EN.01000101.xml










28.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 October 2021
(2021/C 435/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1617 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,00 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4394 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84530 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9713 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0670 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7368 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,684 




HUF


Hungarian forint


364,05 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6207 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9484 




TRY


Turkish lira


11,0173 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5458 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4414 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0363 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6211 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5665 




KRW


South Korean won


1 360,44 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3934 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4260 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5145 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 509,26 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8263 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,924 




RUB


Russian rouble


81,4950 




THB


Thai baht


38,650 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4510 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4502 




INR


Indian rupee


87,2010 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-694/21: Action brought on 28 October 2021 — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik v EUIPO — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik (aTmos)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, heating, lighting, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022002EN.01004401.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/44






Action brought on 28 October 2021 — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik v EUIPO — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik (aTmos)
(Case T-694/21)
(2022/C 2/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and S. Pilgram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH (Riedstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘aTmos’ — European Union trade mark No 12 285 649

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2021 in Case R 1844/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/618 of 15 April 2021 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for diclofop, fluopyram, ipconazole and terbuthylazine in or on certain products (Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 16 April 2021)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, crop production, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue








L_2021382EN.01005601.xml










28.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 382/56







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/618 of 15 April 2021 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for diclofop, fluopyram, ipconazole and terbuthylazine in or on certain products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 16 April 2021
)


Between pages 69 and 71, in 14 separate instances:
for:


                  ‘[Office of Publication: please insert date 2 years after publication]’,

read:


                  ‘
                  16 April 2023
                  ’
Case T-201/18: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission (Public health — Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material — Failure by the Commission to initiate the procedure for re-examining the ban — Action for failure to act — Proposal of draft measures putting an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for failure to act, animal disease, disease prevention, export (EU), export restriction, organic fertiliser, public health, soil improvement








C_2021513EN.01002602.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/26






Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission
(Case T-201/18) (1)

(Public health - Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material - Failure by the Commission to initiate the procedure for re-examining the ban - Action for failure to act - Proposal of draft measures putting an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 513/39)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Diusa Rendering Srl (Piacenza, Italy) and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, W. Farrell and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) so as to re-examine the ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material laid down by Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on this action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Diusa Rendering Srl and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali.






(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Case C-324/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Supply of services — Articles 63 — Chargeability of VAT — Articles 64(1) — Concept of ‘supplies which give rise to successive payments’ — One-time supply remunerated by means of payment in instalments — Articles 90(1) — Reduction of the taxable amount — Concept of ‘non-payment of the price’)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, payment, provision of services, service, tax collection, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2022002EN.01000901.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-324/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Supply of services - Articles 63 - Chargeability of VAT - Articles 64(1) - Concept of ‘supplies which give rise to successive payments’ - One-time supply remunerated by means of payment in instalments - Articles 90(1) - Reduction of the taxable amount - Concept of ‘non-payment of the price’)
(2022/C 2/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Finanzamt B

Respondent: X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 64(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a service supplied on a single occasion remunerated by way of instalment payments does not fall within the scope of that provision.










2.


Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an agreement on payment in instalments, the fact that an instalment of the remuneration has not been paid before its term cannot be regarded as non-payment of the price, within the meaning of that provision, and, as a result, cannot lead to a reduction of the taxable amount.






(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1893 of 28 October 2021 amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Moldova, economic sanctions, international sanctions




L_2021384EN.01010801.xml










29.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 384/108








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1893
of 28 October 2021
         
amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1), concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.












(2)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova should be extended until 31 October 2022. The Council will carry out a review of the situation with regard to the restrictive measures after six months.












(3)


Decision 2010/573/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 4(2) of Decision 2010/573/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:


‘2.   This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2022. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.




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




Done at Brussels, 28 October 2021.


For the Council


The President

G. DOVŽAN
            





(1)  Council Decision 2010/573/CFSP of 27 September 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 54).
Case C-636/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Y v CAK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cross-border healthcare — Concept of ‘insured person’ — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 1(c) — Article 2 — Article 24 — Right to the benefits in kind provided by the Member State of residence at the expense of the Member State responsible for paying the pension — Directive 2011/24/EU — Article 3(b)(i) — Article 7 — Reimbursement of the costs of healthcare received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence and the Member State responsible for paying the pension — Conditions)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, health care, health expenditure, health insurance, pension scheme, residence, social-security harmonisation








C_2022002EN.01000301.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Y v CAK
(Case C-636/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cross-border healthcare - Concept of ‘insured person’ - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 1(c) - Article 2 - Article 24 - Right to the benefits in kind provided by the Member State of residence at the expense of the Member State responsible for paying the pension - Directive 2011/24/EU - Article 3(b)(i) - Article 7 - Reimbursement of the costs of healthcare received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence and the Member State responsible for paying the pension - Conditions)
(2022/C 2/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Y

Defendant: CAK

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(b)(i) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in combination with Article 1(c) and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the person in receipt of a pension under the legislation of a Member State, who has a right, under Article 24 of that regulation, as amended, to the benefits in kind provided by the Member State of his or her residence at the expense of the Member State responsible for paying his or her pension, must be regarded as an ‘insured person’, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of that directive, who is able to obtain reimbursement of the costs of the cross-border healthcare that he or she has received in a third Member State, without being affiliated to the compulsory sickness insurance scheme of the Member State responsible for paying his or her pension.


(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/192 of 12 February 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for prochloraz in or on certain products (Official Journal of the European Union L 40 of 13 February 2020)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal product, consumer protection, crop production, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue








L_2021382EN.01005801.xml










28.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 382/58







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/192 of 12 February 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for prochloraz in or on certain products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 40 of 13 February 2020
)


On pages 16 and 17, in one instance each:
for:


                  ‘[Office of Publication: please insert date 2 years after publication]’,

read:


                  ‘
                  13 February 2022
                  ’
Joined Cases C-197/20 and C-216/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — KAHL GmbH & Co. KG (C-197/20) and C.E. Roeper GmbH (C-216/20) v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-197/20), Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-216/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings 1521 90 91 and 1521 90 99 — Interpretation of the Explanatory Notes to subheading 1521 90 99 — Beeswax melted down and solidified prior to import)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, animal product, apiculture, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading








C_2022002EN.01000801.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/8






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — KAHL GmbH & Co. KG (C-197/20) and C.E. Roeper GmbH (C-216/20) v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-197/20), Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-216/20)
(Joined Cases C-197/20 and C-216/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings 1521 90 91 and 1521 90 99 - Interpretation of the Explanatory Notes to subheading 1521 90 99 - Beeswax melted down and solidified prior to import)
(2022/C 2/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: KAHL GmbH & Co. KG (C-197/20) and C.E. Roeper GmbH (C-216/20)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-197/20) and Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-216/20)

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that beeswax which has been melted down, and from which foreign bodies have been mechanically removed in part during the melting process, then solidified to form blocks or slabs, falls under subheading 1521 90 99 of that nomenclature, which refers to ‘other’ waxes, and not under subheading 1521 90 91 of that nomenclature, which refers to ‘raw’ waxes.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case C-123/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Articles 4, 6 and 11 — Infringement proceedings — Unregistered Community design — Appearance of a part of a product — Conditions for protection — Component part of a complex product — Individual character — Act of making available to the public)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, motor vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2022002EN.01000701.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/7






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH
(Case C-123/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Articles 4, 6 and 11 - Infringement proceedings - Unregistered Community design - Appearance of a part of a product - Conditions for protection - Component part of a complex product - Individual character - Act of making available to the public)
(2022/C 2/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendant: Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the making available to the public of images of a product, such as the publication of photographs of a car, entails the making available to the public of a design of a part of that product, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of that regulation, or of a component part of that product, as a complex product, within the meaning of Article 3(c) and Article 4(2) of that regulation, provided that the appearance of that part or component part is clearly identifiable at the time the design is made available.
In order for it to be possible to examine whether that appearance satisfies the condition of individual character referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation, it is necessary that the part or component part in question constitute a visible section of the product or complex product, clearly defined by particular lines, contours, colours, shapes or texture.


(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case C-909/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iaşi — Romania) — BX v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială D. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Article 2(1) and (2) — Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ — Mandatory vocational training undertaken at the employer’s request)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, in-service training, labour law, occupational safety, rest period, traineeship








C_2022002EN.01000401.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/4






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iaşi — Romania) — BX v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială D.
(Case C-909/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Article 2(1) and (2) - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ - Mandatory vocational training undertaken at the employer’s request)
(2022/C 2/05)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Iaşi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BX

Defendant: Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială D.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that the period during which a worker attends vocational training required by his or her employer, which takes place away from his or her usual place of work, at the premises of the training services provider, during which he or she does not perform his or her normal duties, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.