do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (EU) 2021/2232 of 14 December 2021 appointing the members of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU), General Court (EU), appointment of members, committee (EU), member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2021448EN.01006601.xml










15.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 448/66








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/2232
of 14 December 2021
         
appointing the members of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 255 thereof,


Having regard to the initiative by the President of the Court of Justice on 26 October 2021,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a panel has been set up in order to give an opinion on candidates’ suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the Court of Justice and the General Court before the Governments of the Member States make the appointments (the ‘panel’).












(2)


The panel is comprised of seven persons chosen from among former members of the Court of Justice and the General Court, members of national supreme courts and jurists of recognised competence, one of whom is proposed by the European Parliament.












(3)


Account should be taken of a balanced membership of the panel, in particular as regards geographical coverage and as regards representation of the legal systems of the Member States.












(4)


The members of the panel and its President should therefore be appointed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
For a period of four years from 1 March 2022, the following shall be appointed as members of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:






 


Mr Allan ROSAS, President










 


Mr Frank CLARKE










 


Ms Julia LAFFRANQUE










 


Ms Maria Eugénia MARTINS DE NAZARÉ RIBEIRO










 


Ms Barbara POŘÍZKOVÁ










 


Ms Silvana SCIARRA










 


Mr Vassilios SKOURIS






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 2022.




Done at Brussels, 14 December 2021.


For the Council


The President

G. DOVŽAN
Case T-777/21: Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE)
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, glass, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022051EN.01004002.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/40






Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE)
(Case T-777/21)
(2022/C 51/54)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Trend Glass sp. z o.o. (Radom, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ECO STORAGE — Application No 18 324 347

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2021 in Case R 1315/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 324 347;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 33(2) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Article 42(1) thereof;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation [of the administration] to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.
Case T-780/21: Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Lila Rossa Engros v EUIPO (LiLAC)
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022095EN.01004001.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/40






Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Lila Rossa Engros v EUIPO (LiLAC)
(Case T-780/21)
(2022/C 95/56)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Lila Rossa Engros SRL (Voluntari, Romania) (represented by: O. Anghel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for the black EU figurative mark LiLAC — Application for registration No 18 243 487

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2021 in Case R 441/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present action;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant the application for registration No 18 243 487 for the mark LiLAC in respect of all the goods and services applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Incorrect application of the criteria for analysing the absolute grounds for refusal laid down by the case-law.
Report on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 for the 2020 financial year 2021/C 504/19
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU banking union, auditing, bank, bankruptcy, company in difficulties, financial control, financial solvency, financial year, judicial proceedings, operation of the Institutions








C_2021504EN.01004601.xml










14.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 504/46






Report on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 for the 2020 financial year
(2021/C 504/19)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that its report for the 2020 financial year on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the European Community (2021-2026) (09172/2021 — C9-0253/2021 — 2021/0127(NLE))
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Development, Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament
Subjects: Gabon, agreement (EU), catch area, catch quota, fishing agreement, fishing rights, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, sea fishing








C_2022251EN.01018201.xml










30.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/182






P9_TA(2021)0496
EC/Gabon Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the European Community (2021-2026) (09172/2021 — C9-0253/2021 — 2021/0127(NLE))
(Consent)
(2022/C 251/30)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (09172/2021),










—


having regard to the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the European Community (2021-2026) (09171/2021),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), and paragraph 7, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0253/2021),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgets,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0316/2021),





1.   

Gives its consent to the conclusion of the protocol;



2.   

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Gabonese Republic.
Case C-772/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 December 2021 — ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: counterfeiting, euro, issuing of currency, paper money, principle of legal certainty, technical specification, technical standard








C_2022095EN.01001902.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 December 2021 — ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas
(Case C-772/21)
(2022/C 95/24)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant:‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Lietuvos bankas

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the minimum standards referred to in that rule must be complied with by a cash handler who carries out automated fitness checking of euro banknotes?










2.


If, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, the minimum standards referred to therein are applicable only to manufacturers of banknote handling machines (but not to cash handlers), should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, read in conjunction with Article 3(5) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law according to which the obligation to comply with those minimum standards does apply to a cash handler?










3.


Do the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes by banknote handling machines, regard being had to the fact that they are published on the ECB’s website, comply with the principle of legal certainty and with Article 297(2) TFEU, and are they binding on, and capable of being relied upon as regards, cash handlers?










4.


Is Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, in so far as it provides that the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes are published on the ECB’s website and amended from time to time, contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to Article 297(2) TFEU, and therefore invalid?






(1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (ECB/2010/14) (2010/597/EU) (OJ 2010 L 267, p. 1).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Member States (06385/2021 — C9-0368/2021 — 2010/0112(NLE))
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: United States, agreement (EU), air transport, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, revision of an agreement








C_2022251EN.01018101.xml










30.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/181






P9_TA(2021)0495
EU-US air transport agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Member States (06385/2021 — C9-0368/2021 — 2010/0112(NLE))
(Consent)
(2022/C 251/29)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (06385/2021),










—


having regard to the draft Protocol to amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Members States (1) (09913/2010),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0368/2021),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0335/2021),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America.






(1)  OJ L 223, 25.8.2010, p. 3.
Case C-771/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 December 2021 — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, bad weather, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2022128EN.01000701.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 December 2021 — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)
(Case C-771/21)
(2022/C 128/09)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JH

Defendant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay [of flights], and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is obliged to take reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation of a flight even in the event of extraordinary circumstances which confer exemption?










2.


If the Court of Justice replies to question 1 in the affirmative, is the air carrier obliged, as part of those reasonable measures,






a)


to return with the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport because of a storm, to collect the passengers for that flight as soon as the crew’s flying time allows, and, therefore, to operate that flight? If so, is the air carrier also obliged to do this even if, for that reason, in order for other flights which have been assigned to the aircraft to operate, it has to provide another aircraft and a replacement crew at the departure airport of those flights, which is the air carrier’s base airport?










b)


to transfer the passengers by road to the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport 140 km away because of a storm, and to operate the flight from there?










c)


to send a replacement aircraft or to transfer the passengers by road to the replacement aircraft, which was sent to a neighbouring airport, and, therefore, to operate the flight?










(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 07 Volume 008 P. 10.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses 2021/C 504/12
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2021504EN.01003901.xml










14.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 504/39






Notice for the attention of the persons and entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses
(2021/C 504/12)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entity that appear in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 (4), concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses.
The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons and entity should be included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and Regulation (EU) 2020/1998. The grounds for designations of those persons and entity appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons and entity concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons and entity concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 July 2022, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 10 of Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, of the list of designated persons and entities.


(1)  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 445 I, 13.12.2021, p. 17.

(3)  OJ L 410 I , 7.12.2020, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 445 I, 13.12.2021, p. 10.
Case C-779/21 P: Appeal brought on 14 December 2021 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-279/19, Front Polisario v Council
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Morocco, Western Sahara, access to the courts, association agreement (EU), customary law, international law - national law, judicial review, rebel government








C_2022119EN.01002301.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/23






Appeal brought on 14 December 2021 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-279/19, Front Polisario v Council
(Case C-779/21 P)
(2022/C 119/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario), Council of the European Union, French Republic, Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and consequently;










—


dismiss the action brought at first instance by the Front Polisario, or, if the state of proceedings does not permit the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Front Polisario to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







—


First ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings.










—


Second ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of direct concern.










—


Third ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of individual concern.










—


Fourth ground of appeal: errors in law regarding the scope of judicial review, the institutions’ margin of appreciation and the need to find that there had been a manifest error; regarding the consent of the people of Western Sahara not being a requirement; regarding the fact that the concept of consent adopted is too strict and theoretical, that the consultation that obtained the favourable opinion is considered insufficient and that the examination of the benefits is rejected; regarding the Front Polisario’s identification as the entity that would be responsible for giving such consent, given its limited status and representativeness.










—


Fifth ground of appeal: errors in law regarding the possibility of relying on customary international law when examining the validity of an EU act.