do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-730/19: Order of the General Court of 4 January 2022 — CR and CT v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022119EN.01004102.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/41






Order of the General Court of 4 January 2022 — CR and CT v ECB
(Case T-730/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 119/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: CR, CT (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, A. Lefterov and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s assessment of 15 August 2019 in which it found that PNB Banka AS was failing or likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Latvia.










3.


CR and CT shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.










4.


CR and CT, the ECB and the Republic of Latvia shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2 of 4 January 2022 correcting the French language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: air space, air traffic, air traffic control, aircraft, data transmission, management information system, technical specification








L_2022001EN.01000101.xml










5.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 1/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/2
of 4 January 2022
         
correcting the French language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (1) and in particular Article 44(1)(a) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The French language version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 (2) contains errors in Article 5(5), second subparagraph, point (iii) and in Article 8(8) that alter the meaning of the text.












(2)


The French language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 127(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(does not concern the English language)



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 January 2022.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 of 22 November 2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky (OJ L 305, 23.11.2011, p. 35).
Case T-540/21: Order of the General Court of 4 January 2022 — Vivostore v EUIPO — Linda (VIVO LIFE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2022119EN.01004701.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/47






Order of the General Court of 4 January 2022 — Vivostore v EUIPO — Linda (VIVO LIFE)
(Case T-540/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 119/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vivostore Ltd (Winscombe, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Urek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Linda AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 (Case R 1587/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Linda and Vivostore.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Vivostore and Linda AG shall bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/18 of 4 January 2022 establishing a fisheries closure for Northern albacore in the Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N for vessels flying the flag of France
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, France, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2022005EN.01000601.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 5/6








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2022/18
of 4 January 2022
         
establishing a fisheries closure for Northern albacore in the Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N for vessels flying the flag of France


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 (2) lays down quotas for 2021.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock of Northern albacore in the Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N for vessels flying the flag of or registered in France have exhausted the quota allocated for 2021.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated for 2021 to France for the stock of Northern albacore in the Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N referred to in the Annex shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in Article 1 by vessels flying the flag of or registered in France shall be prohibited from the date set out in the Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 January 2022.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Virginijus SINKEVIČIUS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 31, 29.1.2021, p. 31).




ANNEX






No


21/TQ92




Member State


France




Stock


ALB/AN05N




Species


Northern albacore (Thunnus alalunga)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N




Closing date


8.12.2021
Case T-1/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import (EU), originating product








C_2022084EN.01004601.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/46






Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission
(Case T-1/22)
(2022/C 84/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China;










—


order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, (1) the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning injury analysis and causation analysis as well as concerning lack of proper disclosure.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission in the possible existence of significant distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 January 2022 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 January 2022 2022/C 3/01
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2022003EN.01000101.xml










4.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/1






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 January 2022
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 January 2022
(2022/C 3/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1355 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,56 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4382 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84135 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2958 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0372 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0013 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,818 




HUF


Hungarian forint


367,71 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5895 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9483 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,0777 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5691 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4420 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8541 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6651 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5333 




KRW


South Korean won


1 354,40 




ZAR


South African rand


17,9661 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2174 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5190 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 202,02 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7379 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,051 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,5313 




THB


Thai baht


37,665 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3539 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2259 




INR


Indian rupee


84,3949 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-7/22 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2022 by RQ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 November 2021 in Case T-147/17, Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Euro Group (euro area), bank, bond, equal treatment, financial loss, investment company, legal person, natural person, private investment, private sector








C_2022119EN.01002701.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/27






Appeal brought on 4 January 2022 by RQ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 November 2021 in Case T-147/17, Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission
(Case C-7/22 P)
(2022/C 119/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: RQ (represented by: M. Meng-Papantoni, H. Tagaras, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


decide on the further course of action as a matter of right;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the appellant’s application as regards the act adversely affecting it.
In the second place, the appellant submits that the General Court made several errors of law:
As regards, first, the liability of the European Union for unlawful conduct, the General Court disregarded the principles of the rule of law and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by holding that the acts and omissions of the Eurogroup could not, in any event, give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union. The General Court also failed to have regard to the principle of equal treatment by holding that the mere acquisition of bonds, subsequently discounted, by natural and legal persons, was sufficient to consider them to be in an identical or comparable situation within the meaning of the case-law.
Next, the General Court made errors of law concerning strict liability. First, according to the appellant, the General Court wrongly excluded the very existence of strict liability. Second, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the ‘abnormal’ nature of the damage.
Case C-6/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2022 — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A.
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, law of obligations, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2022158EN.01000401.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2022 — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A.
(Case C-6/22)
(2022/C 158/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: M.B., U.B., M.B.

Defendant: X S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in the light of its objective of protecting consumers against unfair terms in contracts with sellers or suppliers, be interpreted as meaning that, once a contract is declared invalid by a court under the rules of that directive, that directive, along with the protection of the consumer, ceases to apply and the rules governing settlement for the consumer and the seller or supplier must be sought under the national contract law governing the settlement of an invalid contract?










2.


In the light of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, where a court finds that the contractual term in question is unlawful and that the contract is not capable of continuing in existence after that term has been removed, in the absence of an agreement by the parties to fill the gap with clauses in accordance with their wishes and in the absence of supplementary provisions (directly applicable to the contract in the absence of an agreement by the parties), must that court declare the contract invalid on the basis of the wishes of the consumer who sought that declaration, or must the court examine, of its own motion, going beyond the form of order sought by the parties, the financial situation of the consumer in order to determine whether declaring the contract invalid would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences?










3.


Must Article 6 of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, if the court comes to the conclusion that declaring the contract invalid would be particularly unfavourable to the consumer and, despite having been encouraged to do so, the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fulfilment of the contract, the court may, taking into account the objective interest of the consumer, fill the gap in the contract, created after the unfair terms have been ‘removed’ from it, not with rules of national law which are supplementary within the meaning of the judgment in Case C-260/18, that is to say, rules which are directly applicable to the gap in the contract, but with specific provisions of national law which can be applied to the contract in question mutatis mutandis or by analogy and which reflect a rule of national contract law?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-4/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)
Date: 2022-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machine tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022109EN.01002601.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/26






Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)
(Case T-4/22)
(2022/C 109/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, Changwon-si, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark PUMA — Application for registration No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2021 in Case R 1677/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and Doosan Machine Tools Co., Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.