do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 23 November 2021 2021/C 473/04
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021473EN.01001801.xml










24.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 473/18






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 November 2021
(2021/C 473/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1259 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,36 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84185 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1330 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0492 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0710 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,445 




HUF


Hungarian forint


370,91 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7119 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9495 




TRY


Turkish lira


14,1306 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5581 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4324 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7744 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6241 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5381 




KRW


South Korean won


1 340,60 




ZAR


South African rand


17,8490 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1943 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5240 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 069,18 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7277 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,119 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,5002 




THB


Thai baht


37,275 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3298 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7773 




INR


Indian rupee


83,8395 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-370/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — KL v EIB (Civil Service — EIB Staff — Health status — Fitness for work — Unjustified absence — Action for annulment — Concept of invalidity — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character — Retrospective payment of invalidity pension — Action for damages)
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, absenteeism, damages, disability insurance, disabled person, incapacity for work, interest, worker with disabilities








C_2022037EN.01002802.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/28






Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — KL v EIB
(Case T-370/20) (1)

(Civil Service - EIB Staff - Health status - Fitness for work - Unjustified absence - Action for annulment - Concept of invalidity - Unlimited jurisdiction - Disputes of a financial character - Retrospective payment of invalidity pension - Action for damages)
(2022/C 37/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KL (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, in the first place, annulment of the EIB’s decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification since 18 February 2019 and, in so far as is necessary, of the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 maintaining those decisions; in the second place, an order requiring the EIB to make retrospective payment of the applicant’s invalidity pension from 1 February 2019 onwards; and, in the third place, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 8 February and 8 March 2019 declaring KL fit to work and absent without justification since 18 February 2019 and the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 maintaining those decisions;










2.


Orders the EIB to pay an invalidity pension to KL from 1 February 2019 and default interest on that pension until such time as payment has been made in full, the default interest rate being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations and in force on the first day of the month in which the deadline for payment falls, increased by two percentage points, less the sums paid by way of remuneration to the applicant during the same period and in respect of which it would appear that, due to the payment of the invalidity pension, they were not payable to the applicant;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the EIB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-434/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark dziandruk — Absolute ground for invalidity — Absence of bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, consultancy, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2022024EN.01002902.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/29






Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk)
(Case T-434/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark dziandruk - Absolute ground for invalidity - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 24/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Piotr Włodarczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: M. Bohaczewski and A. Zalewska, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ave Investment sp. z o.o. (Pabianice) (represented by: K. Błach Morysińska, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 2192/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Włodarczyk and Ave Investment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Piotr Włodarczyk to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10350 – MONDELEZ / CHIPITA INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPANY) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 113/03
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage, catering industry, cheese, confectionery, confectionery product, economic concentration, food production, merger control, packaged product








C_2023113EN.01000301.xml










28.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/3







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10350 – MONDELEZ / CHIPITA INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPANY)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 113/03)

On 24 November 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 32021M10350. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE State aid — Poland (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU – Withdrawal of notification State aid SA.51987 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Poland – District heating network – Tarnobrzeg, SA.52084 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – District heating network – Ropczyce, SA.52238 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – District heating network – Lesko, SA.54236 (2019/C) (ex 2019/N) – District heating network – Dębica, and SA.55273 (2019/C) (ex 2019/N) – District heating network – Ustrzyki Dolne (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 473/12
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Lower Carpathians province, Poland, State aid, control of State aid, energy grid, heating, investment aid








C_2021473EN.01003001.xml










24.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 473/30






DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE
State aid — Poland
(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU – Withdrawal of notification
State aid SA.51987 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Poland – District heating network – Tarnobrzeg, SA.52084 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – District heating network – Ropczyce, SA.52238 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – District heating network – Lesko, SA.54236 (2019/C) (ex 2019/N) – District heating network – Dębica, and SA.55273 (2019/C) (ex 2019/N) – District heating network – Ustrzyki Dolne
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 473/12)
The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, initiated on 25 October 2019 (1) in respect of the measures referred to above, recording that Poland has withdrawn its notifications on 21 April 2020 and 11 June 2021.


(1)  Commission decision in cases SA.51987 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Poland – District heating network – Tarnobrzeg, SA.52084 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – District heating network – Ropczyce, SA.52238 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – District heating network – Lesko, SA.54236 (2019/C) (ex 2019/N) – District heating network – Dębica, and SA.55273 (2019/C) (ex 2019/N) – District heating network – Ustrzyki Dolne (OJ C 411, 6.12.2019, p. 6).
Decision No 1/2021 of the EU-Tunisia Association Council of 24 November 2021 agreeing on the extension of the validity of the EU-Tunisia strategic priorities [2021/2212]
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: EU–Tunisia Association Council
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, Mediterranean region (EU), Tunisia, Union for the Mediterranean, association agreement (EU)








L_2021447EN.01000701.xml










14.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 447/7








            DECISION No 1/2021 OF THE EU-TUNISIA ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
         
of 24 November 2021
         
agreeing on the extension of the validity of the EU-Tunisia strategic priorities [2021/2212]


THE EU-TUNISIA ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part,

Whereas:







(1)


The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (1) (the ‘Agreement’) was signed on 17 July 1995 and entered into force on 1 March 1998.












(2)


Under Article 80 of the Agreement, the Association Council has the power to take decisions for the purpose of attaining the objectives of the Agreement.












(3)


Article 90 of the Agreement provides that the Parties are to take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement and are to see to it that the objectives set out in the Agreement are attained.












(4)


By Decision No 1/2018 of the Association Council (2), the European Union and Tunisia adopted the strategic priorities to guide the partnership for the period 2018-2020.












(5)


In an Exchange of Letters, both sides agreed that the validity of the EU-Tunisia strategic priorities should be extended as a guiding document to consolidate the partnership pending the adoption of new updated strategic priorities.












(6)


Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Association Council provides for the possibility to adopt decisions by written procedure in the period between meetings, if both Parties so agree,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Association Council, acting by written procedure, decides that the validity of the EU-Tunisia strategic priorities, annexed to its Decision No 1/2018, shall be extended until new strategic priorities are adopted by the Association Council.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 24 November 2021.


For the EU-Tunisia Association Council


The President

Othman JERANDI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 97, 30.3.1998, p. 2.

(2)  Decision No 1/2018 of the EU-Tunisia Association Council of 9 November 2018 adopting the EU-Tunisia strategic priorities for the period 2018-2020 (OJ L 293, 20.11.2018, p. 39).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10475 – United Group / Wind Hellas) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 473/11
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, Greece, economic concentration, merger control, pay television, provision of services, subsidiary, telecommunications








C_2021473EN.01002901.xml










24.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 473/29






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10475 – United Group / Wind Hellas)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 473/11)

1.   
On 16 November 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:






—


United Group B.V. (‘United Group’, Netherlands),










—


Wind Hellas (‘Wind’, Greece).




United Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Wind.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for United Group: the provision of telecom and media services in South East Europe. Since November 2020, United Group is active in Greece and Cyprus via its wholly-owned subsidiary Nova Telecommunication S.M.S.A. (previously Forthnet), a telecommunications operator that provides fixed telephony and fixed broadband services in Greece and pay-TV services in Greece and Cyprus. United Group is ultimately solely controlled by BC Partners LLP, an equity global investment firm;










—


for Wind: provision of mobile, fixed and Internet services as well as, marginally, retail pay-TV services, in Greece.






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.10475 – United Group / Wind Hellas
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’).
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.10319 – Greiner/Recticel) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 483/02
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2021483EN.01000201.xml










1.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 483/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.10319 – Greiner/Recticel)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 483/02)
On 24 November 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.10319 — Greiner/Recticel, to the following 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-744/21: Action brought on 24 November 2021 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW)
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, care of mothers and infants, early childhood, medical device, mother's milk, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01005101.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/51






Action brought on 24 November 2021 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW)
(Case T-744/21)
(2022/C 37/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MAXFLOW — Application for registration No 18 328 426

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2021 in Case R 876/2021-2

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 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-707/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 November 2021 — Recamier SA v BR
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, contractual liability, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, private international law, right of action, ruling








C_2022064EN.01002001.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 November 2021 — Recamier SA v BR
(Case C-707/21)
(2022/C 64/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Recamier SA

Respondent: BR

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘Brussels I’) to be interpreted as meaning that the autonomous definition of res judicata covers all the conditions and effects of res judicata or that certain conditions and effects may be determined by the law of the court seised and/or the law of the court which gave the decision?










2.


In the first scenario, are applications made before the courts of two Member States to be regarded, in the light of the autonomous definition of res judicata, as having the same cause of action where the applicant pleads identical facts but relies on different pleas in law?










3.


Are two applications, one founded in contractual liability and the other in liability in tort, but based on the same legal relationship, such as the performance of duties as a director, to be regarded as having the same cause of action?










4.


In the second scenario, does Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, pursuant to which it has been held that a judicial decision must move within the Member States with the same scope and the same effects as it has in the Member State in which it was given, require that reference is made to the law of the court of origin or does it allow, with regard to the procedural consequences attached to it, the law of the court in which enforcement is sought to be applied?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation 2021/C 473/06
Date: 2021-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: Finland, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2021473EN.01002001.xml










24.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 473/20






New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2021/C 473/06)






National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Finland

Subject of commemoration: The 100-year autonomy of Åland

Description of the design: The theme of the coin is the archipelago landscape composed of embossed forms. The lower half of the design has a seaway with nautical signs, the bow of a boat and a hand holding a compass. The horizontal midline of the design has a sea horizon. The upper half of the design has sky and clouds. At the bottom, in semi-circle, is the inscription ‘AUTONOMY OF THE ÅLAND ISLANDS FOR 100 YEARS’ in Finnish. At the top, in semi-circle, is the inscription ‘AUTONOMY OF THE ÅLAND ISLANDS FOR 100 YEARS’ in Swedish. At the centre there are two diamond shaped highlights between the texts, one at the left and the other at the right. Above the diamonds, at the right side is the inscription ‘2021 FI’ and at the left side the mintmark of the Mint of Finland.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 800 000

Date of issue: Autumn 2021


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).