do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-689/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Dismissal — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Lack of competence of the author of the act)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competence of the institution, dismissal








C_2022073EN.01003901.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/39






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB
(Case T-689/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Dismissal - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Lack of competence of the author of the act)
(2022/C 73/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking annulment of the decision of the EIB of 27 April 2020 terminating the applicant’s employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HB to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB).






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Case T-778/21: Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Philippines, damages, income, rights of the defence, termination of a contract








C_2022084EN.01004202.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/42






Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission
(Case T-778/21)
(2022/C 84/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rommert Folkertsma (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


recognise the non-contractual liability of the defendant;










—


grant a compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct;










—


if need be, annul the decision of the defendant dated 5 October 2021, rejecting its liability in the applicant’s removal from the SUBRATA Project in the Philippines; and,










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, as to the unlawful conduct of the defendant, on three pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the defendant’s duty to give reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the defendant’s duty of diligence.




The damage suffered by the applicant is actual, certain and quantifiable. It consists in the loss of income for the duration of the service contract that the applicant had, then in the loss of a serious chance to have the contract renewed for another two years at it initial term and thirdly, to the breach to the applicant’s good name. The applicant searches the compensation of his material prejudice and of his moral prejudice.
Case T-618/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FZ and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Commission staff posted to a third country — Annual and interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, posted worker, remuneration of work, retroactivity of a law, wage determination








C_2022084EN.01003802.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/38






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FZ and Others v Commission
(Case T-618/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Commission staff posted to a third country - Annual and interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment)
(2022/C 84/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: FZ and 17 other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 April and 1 July 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FZ and the other applicants whose names appear in annex to the judgment to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case T-734/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background — Partial rejection of the application — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, foodstuff, fruit, household article, non-alcoholic beverage, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2022109EN.01002302.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/23






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background)
(Case T-734/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background - Partial rejection of the application - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 109/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Boquoi Handels OHG (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Lorenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 (Case R 522/2020-2), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing an ice crystal on a blue circular background as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Boquoi Handels OHG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case C-784/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Wolfgang Kappes against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-429/20, Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022213EN.01001801.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/18






Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Wolfgang Kappes against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-429/20, Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-784/21 P)
(2022/C 213/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Wolfgang Kappes (represented by: B. Schneiders, J. Schneiders, T. Pfeifer, N. Gottschalk, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sedus Stoll AG, European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 5 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 December 2021 2021/C 505/02
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021505EN.01000201.xml










15.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 505/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 December 2021
(2021/C 505/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1309 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,45 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85345 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2810 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0404 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2475 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,334 




HUF


Hungarian forint


366,85 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6300 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9494 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,2092 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5866 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4490 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8227 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6723 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5469 




KRW


South Korean won


1 338,31 




ZAR


South African rand


18,1219 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1956 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5213 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 179,72 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7860 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,882 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,1963 




THB


Thai baht


37,716 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3723 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7839 




INR


Indian rupee


85,8790 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-785/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Wolfgang Kappes against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-436/20, Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022213EN.01001802.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/18






Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Wolfgang Kappes against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-436/20, Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-785/21 P)
(2022/C 213/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Wolfgang Kappes (represented by: B. Schneiders, J. Schneiders, T. Pfeifer, N. Gottschalk, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sedus Stoll AG, European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 5 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Case T-683/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2022109EN.01002202.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/22






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)
(Case T-683/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 109/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1648/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Case C-777/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 15 December 2021 — VB v Comune di Portici
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, freedom to provide services, residence, right of establishment, self-employed person, vehicle registration








C_2022148EN.01001101.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 15 December 2021 — VB v Comune di Portici
(Case C-777/21)
(2022/C 148/16)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: VB

Respondent: Comune di Portici

Question referred

Is the Italian State’s legislation (in this case, Article 93(1-bis) and (7-bis) of Legislative Decree No 285/1992) contrary to Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it prohibits a self-employed worker resident in Italy for more than 60 days from travelling in that State in a vehicle registered in another Member State regularly used by that individual to travel and move about in the two Member States — the State of residence and the State where the vehicle is registered — in order to practise his profession (and for reasons relating to his private life)?
Case T-682/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a shoe — Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2022109EN.01002201.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/22






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Shoe)
(Case T-682/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a shoe - Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Grounds for invalidity - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 109/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schabenberger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1650/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Case C-776/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2021 — EV v Alltours Flugreisen GmbH
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: coronavirus disease, epidemic, package travel, reservation








C_2022138EN.01001301.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2021 — EV v Alltours Flugreisen GmbH
(Case C-776/21)
(2022/C 138/12)
Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EV

Defendant: Alltours Flugreisen GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is it sufficient, in determining whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances occur at the place of destination of the trip or holiday within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘the Package Travel Directive’), (1) if the destination area of the trip or holiday is classified as a risk area by the specialist authority established at national level for the protection against communicable diseases, while the conditions for classification as a risk area are not satisfied at the place of origin?










2.


Must the traveller be able to predict, at the time of the termination of the package within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12(2) of the Package Travel Directive, whether there will be significant disruptions at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity on the date of departure or at the time of travel?










3.


Must the termination take place close in time to the start of the trip or holiday or may it be declared at any time between the time of booking the trip or holiday and the start of the trip or holiday if it could not be excluded, at the time of termination, that the extraordinary circumstance might occur?






(1)  OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1.
Case T-619/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Annual and interim update of correction coefficients — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, posted worker, remuneration of work, retroactivity of a law, wage determination








C_2022084EN.01003901.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/39






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS
(Case T-619/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Annual and interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment)
(2022/C 84/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: FJ, FL, FM, FN, FP (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 April and 1 July 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FJ, FL, FM, FN and FP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case T-565/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Oltchim v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by Romania to support a petrochemical company — Non-enforcement, accumulation and cancellation of public claims — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be brought — Point from which time starts to run — Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Existence of one or more measures — State resources — Imputability to the State — Applicability of the private creditor test — Application of the private creditor test — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, State aid, aid to undertakings, claim, control of State aid, debt, industrial reorganisation, limitation of legal proceedings, petrochemicals, right of action








C_2022084EN.01003501.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/35






Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Oltchim v Commission
(Case T-565/19) (1)

(State aid - Measures taken by Romania to support a petrochemical company - Non-enforcement, accumulation and cancellation of public claims - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Point from which time starts to run - Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Existence of one or more measures - State resources - Imputability to the State - Applicability of the private creditor test - Application of the private creditor test - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 84/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oltchim SA (Râmnicu Vâlcea, Romania) (represented by: C. Arhold, L.-A. Bondoc, S.-E. Petrisor and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1144 of 17 December 2018 on State aid SA.36086 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Romania for Oltchim (OJ 2019 L 181, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1(a) and (c) of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1144 of 17 December 2018 on State aid SA.36086 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Romania for Oltchim SA;










2.


Annuls Articles 3 to 6 and Article 7(2) of Decision 2019/1144 in so far as they concern the measures referred to in Article 1(a) and (c) of that decision;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders Oltchim to bear one quarter of its own costs;










5.


Orders the European Commission to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Oltchim and to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.