do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-10/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2022 — Liberi editori e autori (LEA) v Jamendo SA
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, literary and artistic property, market access, nationality of legal persons, trade licence








C_2022119EN.01002801.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2022 — Liberi editori e autori (LEA) v Jamendo SA
(Case C-10/22)
(2022/C 119/36)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Liberi editori e autori (LEA)

Defendant: Jamendo SA

Question referred

Must Directive 2014/26/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation that reserves access to the copyright intermediation market, or in any event the granting of licences to users, solely to entities which can be classified, according to the definition in that directive, as collective management organisations, to the exclusion of those which can be classified as independent management entities incorporated in that Member State or in other Member States?


(1)  Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 January 2022 2022/C 4/01
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022004EN.01000101.xml










5.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 January 2022
(2022/C 4/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1279 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,17 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4378 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83618 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2808 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0355 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0138 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,745 




HUF


Hungarian forint


365,12 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5667 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9481 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,1384 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5682 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4382 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7919 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6668 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5310 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,91 




ZAR


South African rand


18,1080 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1924 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5185 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 199,73 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7214 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,988 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,9202 




THB


Thai baht


37,582 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4174 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1808 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2055 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-5/22: Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron)
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2022084EN.01004901.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/49






Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron)
(Case T-5/22)
(2022/C 84/68)
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: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a chevron) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 441 912

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2021 in Case R 910/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-740/21: Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — SN and Others v Eurowings GmbH (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of denied boarding — Passengers who arrived at the airport in good time — Flight missed owing to the unusually long duration of the check-in process — Organisational shortcomings or disruptions affecting the airport)
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, carrier, civil aviation, ground handling, indemnification, traveller








C_2022119EN.01001501.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/15






Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — SN and Others v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-740/21) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of denied boarding - Passengers who arrived at the airport in good time - Flight missed owing to the unusually long duration of the check-in process - Organisational shortcomings or disruptions affecting the airport)
(2022/C 119/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: SN and DR, as well as GI, legally represented by SN and DR

Respondent: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the order

Case C-740/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.


(1)  Date of filing: 1/12/2021.
Case C-13/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Romania) lodged on 5 January 2022 — EF, GH, IJ v KL
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: constitutional court, disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judge, judgment of the Court (EU), primacy of EU law, right to justice, ruling








C_2022191EN.01000901.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Romania) lodged on 5 January 2022 — EF, GH, IJ v KL
(Case C-13/22)
(2022/C 191/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: EF, GH, IJ

Defendant: KL

Questions referred







1.


Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 148(2) of the Romanian Constitution, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) in Decision No 390/2021, according to which national courts no longer have jurisdiction to examine the conformity with EU law of a provision of national law that has been found to be constitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court?










2.


Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that contained in Article 99(ș) of Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which provides for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the application of disciplinary penalties in respect of a judge for failure to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court, where that judge is called upon to acknowledge the primacy of EU law over the grounds of a decision of the Constitutional Court, that provision of national law depriving him or her of the possibility of applying a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which he or she regards as taking precedence?
Case C-697/21: Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — PW v Eurowings GmbH (Air transport — Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights — Means by which the cost of the ticket is reimbursed — Reimbursement by travel voucher — Request to be reimbursed in cash)
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, civil aviation, indemnification, ticket








C_2022109EN.01001302.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/13






Order of the President of the Court of 5 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — PW v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-697/21) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation of flights - Means by which the cost of the ticket is reimbursed - Reimbursement by travel voucher - Request to be reimbursed in cash)
(2022/C 109/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PW

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the order

Case C-697/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.


(1)  Date of filing: 19/11/2021.
Case C-8/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 5 January 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
Date: 2022-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crime, penalty, principle of proportionality, public safety, refugee, right of asylum








C_2022148EN.01001201.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 5 January 2022 — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
(Case C-8/22)
(2022/C 148/18)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XXX

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, (1) be interpreted as providing that danger to the community is established by the mere fact that the beneficiary of refugee status has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime or must it be interpreted as providing that a conviction by a final judgment for a particularly serious crime is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the existence of a danger to the community?










2.


If a conviction by final judgment for a particularly serious crime is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the existence of a danger to the community, must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as requiring the Member State to establish that, since his or her conviction, the applicant continues to constitute a danger to the community? Must the Member State establish that the danger is genuine and present or is the existence of a potential threat sufficient? Must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, taken alone or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as allowing revocation of refugee status only if that revocation is proportionate and the danger represented by the beneficiary of that status sufficiently serious to justify that revocation?










3.


If the Member State does not have to establish that, since his or her conviction, the applicant continues to constitute a danger to the community and that the threat is genuine, present and sufficiently serious to justify the revocation of refugee status, must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as meaning that danger to the community is established, in principle, by the fact that the beneficiary of refugee status has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, but that he or she may establish that he or she does not constitute, or no longer constitutes, such a danger?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.