do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-3/22 P: Appeal brought on 3 January 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 October 2021 in Case T-22/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, Union delegation, financial management, guarantee, ministry, operation of the Institutions, pre-accession aid, third country








C_2022303EN.01001001.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/10






Appeal brought on 3 January 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 October 2021 in Case T-22/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission
(Case C-3/22 P)
(2022/C 303/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (represented by: D. Luff, avocat, and by R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 27 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL shall bear its own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10396 – GIP / MERIDIAM / NEW SUEZ) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 23/02
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, waste management, water management, water supply








C_2022023EN.01000201.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10396 – GIP / MERIDIAM / NEW SUEZ)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 23/02)
On 3 January 2022, 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 French 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 32022M10396. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 31 December 2021 2022/C 1/02
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022001EN.01000201.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

31 December 2021
(2022/C 1/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1326 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,38 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84028 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2503 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0331 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9888 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,858 




HUF


Hungarian forint


369,19 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5969 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9490 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,2335 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5615 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4393 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8333 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6579 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5279 




KRW


South Korean won


1 346,38 




ZAR


South African rand


18,0625 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1947 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5156 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 100,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7184 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,763 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,3004 




THB


Thai baht


37,653 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3101 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1438 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2292 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-13/22: Action brought on 3 January 2022 — Loutsou v EUIPO (POLIS LOUTRON)
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, hairdressing and beauty care, leisure, medical centre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022138EN.01002201.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/22






Action brought on 3 January 2022 — Loutsou v EUIPO (POLIS LOUTRON)
(Case T-13/22)
(2022/C 138/25)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Alexandra Loutsou (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: S. Psomakakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark POLIS LOUTRON — Application for registration No 18 144 809

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 544/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 544/2020-1, relating to EU trade mark application No 18 144 809, well founded and admissible;










—


annul in part notification No L 110 of 8 November 2019 concerning the notification of the grounds for refusal of EU trade mark application No 18 144 809, with the result that that application for registration is upheld in its entirety and the mark at issue registered as a distinctive sign of the goods and services of the undertaking of the applicant in the territory of the European Union for the classes applied for;










—


annul in part notification No L 123 of 20 January 2020 rejecting EU trade mark application No 18 144 809, with the result that that application for registration is upheld in its entirety and the mark at issue registered as a distinctive sign of the goods and services of the undertaking of the applicant in the territory of the European Union for the classes applied for;










—


order EUIPO, the defendant, to register the mark POLIS LOUTRON as a trade mark in all the classes applied for and in respect of all the goods and services applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

The contested decision incorrectly interpreted and applied the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, since the mark at issue is neither descriptive nor lacking distinctive character, and there are therefore no grounds to prevent it from being registered for the classes in question and in respect of the goods and services therein.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10519 – BLACKSTONE / INTERPLEX) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 23/01
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, technology








C_2022023EN.01000101.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10519 – BLACKSTONE / INTERPLEX)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 23/01)
On 3 January 2022, 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 32022M10519. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 December 2021 2022/C 1/01
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022001EN.01000101.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 December 2021
(2022/C 1/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1334 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,44 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83930 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2438 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0363 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9703 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,917 




HUF


Hungarian forint


370,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5960 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9494 




TRY


Turkish lira


14,7184 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5594 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4481 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8399 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6545 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5330 




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,56 




ZAR


South African rand


18,0173 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2230 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5211 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 163,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7336 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,849 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,8888 




THB


Thai baht


37,867 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3734 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2431 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2575 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-2/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2022 — HK v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, consumer information, insurance indemnity, life assurance








C_2022148EN.01001102.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2022 — HK v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG
(Case C-2/22)
(2022/C 148/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HK

Defendant: Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law, in particular Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (1) and Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (2) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation under which full consumer information is only provided with the insurance policy, that is after the consumer has made an application (‘policy model’)?
If so: Does that of itself substantiate the consumer’s right to object, that is to demand reversal of the insurance contract?
Might the exercise of such a right be prevented by a plea of forfeiture or abuse of rights or is the exercise of that right subject to any other limits, such as time limits?










2.


Is an insurer which provided the consumer with no information or with incorrect information on his or her right to object prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the consumer’s resultant rights, including the right to object?










3.


Is an insurer which provided the consumer with no consumer information or with incorrect consumer information prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the consumer’s resultant rights, including the right to object?






(1)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).
Case C-5/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 January 2022 — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)
Date: 2022-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, consumer protection, contract terms, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy grid, energy market








C_2022128EN.01001002.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 January 2022 — Green Network SpA v SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)
(Case C-5/22)
(2022/C 128/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Green Network SpA

Defendants: SF, YB, Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of EU law contained in Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 (1) — and in particular in Article 37(1) and (4), governing the powers of the regulatory authorities, and in Annex I — to be interpreted as including a prescriptive power exercised by the Italian electricity market regulatory authority (Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente) (ARERA), in relation to companies operating in the electricity sector, whereunder the authority may order such a company to reimburse customers, including former customers and customers in arrears, sums of money paid by such customers to cover administrative management costs, pursuant to a contractual term that has been penalised by the authority?










2.


Are the provisions of EU law contained in Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 — and in particular in Article 37(1) and (4), governing the powers of the regulatory authorities, and in Annex I — to be interpreted as including, within the scope of any compensation and the refund arrangements which apply to customers in the electricity market if contracted service quality levels are not met by the market operator, the reimbursement of moneys paid by such customers that are expressly governed by a contractual term in an agreement that has been signed and accepted and bear no relationship to service quality itself but are stipulated as covering the economic operator’s own administrative management costs?






(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).