do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-273/21: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék — Hungary) — WD v Agrárminiszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agriculture — Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Direct support schemes — Article 4(1)(c) and (e) — Article 32(2) — Single area payment application — Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ — Land classified as an aerodrome according to the land register — Actual use for agricultural purposes)
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, agricultural land, aid to agriculture, airport, eligibility criteria, grassland, land register, livestock farming, single payment scheme








C_2022095EN.01000501.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/5






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék — Hungary) — WD v Agrárminiszter
(Case C-273/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agriculture - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Direct support schemes - Article 4(1)(c) and (e) - Article 32(2) - Single area payment application - Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ - Land classified as an aerodrome according to the land register - Actual use for agricultural purposes)
(2022/C 95/07)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WD

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Operative part of the order

Article 4(1)(c) and (e) and Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that an area classified, under national law, as an aerodrome, but on which no activity relating to an aerodrome is carried out, must be classified as an agricultural area used for agricultural purposes since it is in fact used as permanent pasture for livestock


(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 25 November 2021 2021/C 476/01
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021476EN.01000101.xml










26.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 476/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 November 2021
(2021/C 476/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1223 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,41 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84295 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1760 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0480 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0655 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,475 




HUF


Hungarian forint


366,61 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6661 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9494 




TRY


Turkish lira


13,4739 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5627 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4223 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7514 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6394 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5350 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,04 




ZAR


South African rand


17,8177 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1676 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5225 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 034,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7468 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,451 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,9075 




THB


Thai baht


37,496 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2643 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,1647 




INR


Indian rupee


83,6074 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (Official Journal of the European Union L 231 of 30 June 2021)
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: European Social Fund, European social policy, access to education, eligibility criteria, innovation, job access, organisation of health care, poverty, social integration, vocational training








L_2021421EN.01007501.xml










26.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 421/75







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 231 of 30 June 2021
)


On page 57, Annex III, point 1 ‘Output indicators’, item 1.2.2:
for:







‘1.2.2.


proportion of the ESF+ co-financed food in the total volume of food distributed the beneficiaries (in %).’,





read:







‘1.2.2.


proportion of the ESF+ co-financed food in the total volume of food distributed by the beneficiaries (in %).’.
Case T-272/21 R II: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 26 November 2021 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (Interim measures — Institutional law — Member of Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity








C_2022037EN.01003301.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/33






Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 26 November 2021 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament
(Case T-272/21 R II)
(Interim measures - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
(2022/C 37/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo), Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye, J. Costa i Rosselló and S. Bekaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the applicants’ immunity.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-48/21: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2021 — Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, decorative item, floor coverings, furniture industry, household article, registered trade mark, textile product, toiletries, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022073EN.01006802.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/68






Order of the General Court of 26 November 2021 — Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)
(Case T-48/21) (1)

(2022/C 73/86)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Case C-720/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, appeal, constitution, infringement of EU law, right to justice, rule of law








C_2022128EN.01000502.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich
(Case C-720/21)
(2022/C 128/07)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the extraordinary appeal: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Other parties to the proceedings: M.M., E.M., X Bank Spółka Akcyjna

Questions referred







1.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as making admissible a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, aimed at setting aside a final ruling of a court where there is a need to ‘ensure compliance with the principle of a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice’ if the use of that remedy is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of EU law?










2.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where provisions of national law make it possible for a final ruling of a court to be varied or set aside by means of a remedy such as an extraordinary appeal in the event of a breach of the principles enshrined in the Constitution of a Member State, those provisions may also be relied on as grounds for setting aside or varying a final ruling of a court in the event of a breach of EU law?










3.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court has infringed EU law in a manner which has led to a case being decided in a way that is flawed from the point of view of that law, the final ruling of that court may be set aside or varied by means of a legal remedy, such as an extraordinary appeal, which makes such a decision conditional upon a ‘flagrant’ breach of the law?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10496 – CREMER / CLYDE INVESTMENTS / CREMER SUSTAINABLE FOODS JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 492/02
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Singapore, agricultural product, chemical product, economic concentration, foodstuff, intermediate goods, merger control, processed foodstuff, raw material, sale








C_2021492EN.01000401.xml










8.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 492/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10496 – CREMER / CLYDE INVESTMENTS / CREMER SUSTAINABLE FOODS JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 492/02)
On 26 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 32021M10496. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-747/21: Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf)
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, clothing, cosmetic product, office supplies, registered trade mark, sporting event, sports facilities, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01005201.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/52






Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf)
(Case T-747/21)
(2022/C 37/68)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kitzberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: David Neng (Brüggen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fohlenelf’ — EU trade mark No 12 246 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2021 in Case R 2126/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the applicant, including the costs incurred in the previous proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 97(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Recommendation No 1/2021 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 26 November 2021 agreeing on the extension of the validity of the EU-Egypt Partnership Priorities [2021/2213]
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: EU–Egypt Association Council
Subjects: Egypt, European neighbourhood policy, Mediterranean region (EU), Union for the Mediterranean, association agreement (EU)








L_2021447EN.01000801.xml










14.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 447/8








            RECOMMENDATION No 1/2021 OF THE EU-EGYPT ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
         
of 26 November 2021
         
agreeing on the extension of the validity of the EU-Egypt Partnership Priorities [2021/2213]


THE EU-EGYPT 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 Arab Republic of Egypt, 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 Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (1) (the ‘Agreement’) was signed on 25 June 2001 and entered into force on 1 June 2004.












(2)


Under Article 76 of the Agreement, the Association Council may make appropriate recommendations.












(3)


Article 86 of the Agreement states 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)


In the Association Council of 25 July 2017, the European Union and Egypt agreed on the Partnership Priorities, as set out in Recommendation No 1/2017 of the Association Council (2), to guide the partnership for the period 2017-2020.












(5)


Following a letter from the European Union, both Parties agreed that the validity of the EU-Egypt Partnership Priorities should be extended as a guiding document to consolidate the partnership pending the adoption of new updated Partnership Priorities.












(6)


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





HEREBY RECOMMENDS:



Article 1
The Association Council, acting by written procedure, recommends that the validity of the EU-Egypt Partnership Priorities adopted at the Association Council on 25 July 2017 be extended until new updated Partnership Priorities are adopted by the Association Council.


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




Done at Brussels, 26 November 2021.


For the EU-Egypt Association Council


The President

Sameh Hassan SHOUKRY
            





(1)  
            OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 39.

(2)  Recommendation No 1/2017 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 25 July 2017 agreeing on the EU-Egypt Partnership Priorities (OJ L 255, 3.10.2017, p. 26).
Case C-718/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — L.G. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa
Date: 2021-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judge, retirement conditions








C_2022128EN.01000501.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — L.G. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa
(Case C-718/21)
(2022/C 128/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: L.G.

Other party to the proceedings: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Questions referred







1.


Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude a provision of national law such as the first sentence of Article 69(1b) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 r. — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the System of Ordinary Courts; Dz, U. of 2020, item 2072), which makes the effectiveness of a declaration by a judge of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age subject to the consent of another body?










2.


Does the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union preclude the adoption of an interpretation of a national provision under which a judge’s belated declaration of his or her intention to continue to hold a judicial office after reaching retirement age is ineffective, irrespective of the reason for the failure to observe the time limit and the significance of that failure for the proceedings concerning consent to his or her continuing to hold a judicial office?