do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-19/22: Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry (Shape of a scooter)
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2022095EN.01004101.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/41






Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry (Shape of a scooter)
(Case T-19/22)
(2022/C 95/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Piaggio & C. SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a scooter) –European Union trade mark No 11 686 482

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2021 in Case R 359/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;
in the alternative:










—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Boards of Appeal for them to set out clearly in which countries the EU mark No 11 686 482 of the applicant is valid and/or has acquired distinctive character and, conversely, in which countries it has not acquired such distinctive character, on the basis of the evidence provided by the proprietor;
in any event:










—


order the defendant to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union;










—


order EUIPO and the potential intervener to pay the entirety of the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;










—


Infringement and/or incorrect interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and incorrect assessment of the evidence provided by the proprietor of the EU mark.
Case C-27/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 January 2022 — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, consumer protection, fine, legal person, restriction on competition, right to justice








C_2022128EN.01001101.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 January 2022 — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
(Case C-27/22)
(2022/C 128/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants and appellants: Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant and respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Questions referred







1.


Can the penalties imposed for unfair commercial practices under national legislation implementing Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be classified as criminal administrative penalties?










2.


Must Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision that makes it possible to uphold in court proceedings and make final a criminal administrative penalty against a legal person in respect of unlawful conduct in the form of unfair commercial practices, for which a final criminal conviction has been handed down against that person in the meantime in a different Member State, where the latter criminal conviction became final before the legal challenge to the former criminal administrative penalty became res judicata?










3.


Can the provisions laid down in Directive 2005/29, with particular reference to Articles 3(4) and 13(2)(e), justify a derogation from the principle of ne bis in idem established by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (subsequently incorporated into the Treaty on European Union by Article 6 TEU) and by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention?






(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10546 – ICG/CEIT) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 12/04
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, financial services, investment company, merger control, telecommunications, transport infrastructure








C_2022012EN.01000901.xml










11.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10546 – ICG/CEIT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 12/04)

1.   
On 3 January 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Intermediate Capital Group plc (‘ICG’, the United Kingdom),










—


CEIT S.p.A (‘CEIT’, Italy), controlled by Igefi S.R.L.




ICG acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of CEIT.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ICG: active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and equity investments in various companies worldwide,










—


for CEIT: design, installation, construction, renovation, extension, and maintenance of infrastructure networks, mostly in the telecommunications sector and, to some extent, in the energy and transportation sectors.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10546 – ICG/CEIT
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-62/21: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 11 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG v E. Leinfelder GmbH, TL, SW, WL
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, right of action, trade-mark law








C_2022213EN.01003601.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/36






Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 11 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG v E. Leinfelder GmbH, TL, SW, WL
(Case C-62/21) (1)

(2022/C 213/48)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.
Case T-23/22: Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Grail v Commission
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, acquisition of property, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, principle of proportionality, shareholder








C_2022095EN.01004302.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/43






Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Grail v Commission
(Case T-23/22)
(2022/C 95/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grail LLC (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: D. Little, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. M. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and A. Giraud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Commission’s Decision of 29 October 2021 adopting interim measures under Article 8(5)(a) of Regulation 139/2004 (‘EUMR’) in Case COMP/M.10493 — Illumina / GRAIL;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, contesting the jurisdiction of the Commission to adopt the Decision. The Commission has no competence to adopt a decision under Article 8(5)(a) EUMR, if the Court rules in Case T-227/21 that the six referral decisions adopted by the Commission on 19 April 2021 pursuant to Article 22(3) EUMR were unlawful.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and facts committed by the Commission in the interpretation, application, and reasoning of the legal requirements for adoption of the Decision under Article 8(5)(a) EUMR.






—


The Decision is wrong in ignoring that the Hold-Separate Commitments adopted and notified by Illumina to the Commission after Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL Inc.’s shares prevented the Parties from implementing the concentration within the meaning of Article 7 EUMR.










—


The Decision contains no meaningful discussion of the conditions of competition existing at the time of its adoption and fails to demonstrate how Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL Inc.’s shares had reduced effective competition or would reduce effective competition before the Commission could adopt a final decision on the substance.










—


The Decision fails to identify any urgency that would justify the adoption of interim measures since nothing material in terms of effects on competition in the affected markets could happen during the few months between the adoption of the Decision and the adoption of the substantive decision on the concentration.










—


The Decision is vitiated by an error of law in assuming that under Article 8(5)(a) EUMR the Commission is entitled to adopt interim measures with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of a hypothetical future decision under Article 8(4) EUMR.










—


The imposition of a particular obligation on GRAIL is incompatible with Article 8(5)(a) EUMR; it is not necessary or proportionate.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 10 January 2022 2022/C 13/01
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022013EN.01000101.xml










11.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2022
(2022/C 13/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1318 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,45 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4381 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83398 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3038 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0446 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0253 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,357 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5334 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9449 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,7183 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5774 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4327 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8233 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6753 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5344 




KRW


South Korean won


1 355,68 




ZAR


South African rand


17,6999 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2128 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5278 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 181,90 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7536 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,141 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,9825 




THB


Thai baht


38,074 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3969 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0597 




INR


Indian rupee


83,8000 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-24/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 11 January 2022 — PR Pet BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, domestic animal, household article, specification of tariff heading








C_2022158EN.01000601.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 11 January 2022 — PR Pet BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven
(Case C-24/22)
(2022/C 158/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland, sitting in Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PR Pet BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Questions referred







1.


Must CN heading 9403 be interpreted as meaning that cat scratching posts, made up of a variety of materials, intended to be placed on the floor in (living) areas and to remain there so that cats can climb into them, sit on them, lie on them and scratch them, are not covered by this CN heading because they are of a different nature as referred to in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 (1) of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 (2) of 3 April 2014? If there is a different nature that precludes classification under CN heading 9403, what constitutes that different nature?










2.


Does the answer to question 1 have any implications for the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2013 L 322, p. 8).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2014 L 104, p. 4).
Case T-31/22: Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice
Date: 2022-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, public procurement, right to justice, tendering








C_2022158EN.01000901.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/9






Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Perez Lopes Pargana Calado v Court of Justice
(Case T-31/22)
(2022/C 158/10)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Ana Teresa Perez Lopes Pargana Calado (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Matias, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


find that the decision relating to the applicant in the present proceedings is invalid for lack of any basis;










—


replace that decision with another stating whether the applicant is allowed to participate in the procurement procedure and, should she not be allowed, the reasons for the rejection, by reference to the other candidates and the contract notice;










—


revise the decision and replace it with another decision allowing the tenderer to participate in the procurement procedure, under the same conditions as the other tenderers.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment: the decision was not fair compared with the other candidates.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the infringement cannot be imputed, on grounds of unlawfulness.










3.


Third plea in law, based on the instructions received from the Court of Justice to complete an ongoing translation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that all of the documentation submitted satisfies the requirements and that the grounds for exclusion are not set out in the decision not to accept that documentation.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the declaration issued should have been removed and not have adversely affected the candidate, since it was not part of the documentation requested.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard prior to the adoption of measures excluding the applicant from the procurement procedure on the basis of a presumed infringement (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation of the administration to state reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).