do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-743/20: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2022 — Car-Master 2 v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Motor vehicle repair market in Poland — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Case dealt with by a national competition authority — Action lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice, right to justice








C_2022119EN.01004501.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/45






Order of the General Court of 17 January 2022 — Car-Master 2 v Commission
(Case T-743/20) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Motor vehicle repair market in Poland - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Case dealt with by a national competition authority - Action lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 119/62)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Car-Master 2 sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: M. Miśkowicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, J. Szczodrowski and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 7369 final of 22 October 2020 (Case AT.40665 — Toyota Motor Poland) rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant alleging infringements of Article 101 TFEU.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Car-Master 2 sp. z o.o. sp.k shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.
Case C-35/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2022 — Cajasur Banco, S. A. v JO and IM
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer protection, financial institution, indemnification, legal expenses, right to justice, unfair terms of contract








C_2022171EN.01001601.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2022 — Cajasur Banco, S. A. v JO and IM
(Case C-35/22)
(2022/C 171/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Málaga

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Cajasur Banco, S. A.

Respondents: JO and IM

Questions referred







1.


Is it contrary to the right to effective judicial protection and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to require that, before instituting legal proceedings, the consumer must first have issued an out-of-court demand for payment in order for the declaration as to the invalidity of a particular general condition of contract on grounds of unfairness to give rise to all of the compensatory effects (including the costs of the legal proceedings) associated with such invalidity, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? (1)











2.


Is it compatible with the right to full compensation and the effectiveness of European Union law and Article 6(1) of the aforementioned directive to make the imposition of costs (including legal fees) subject to a condition based on the existence of a prior out-of-court demand for payment issued by the consumer to the financial institution with a view to the removal of that term?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 January 2022 2022/C 22/01
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022022EN.01000101.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 January 2022
(2022/C 22/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1447 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,17 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4414 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83508 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2684 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0429 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9863 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,493 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,10 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5414 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9429 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,5256 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5803 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4330 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9119 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6745 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5418 




KRW


South Korean won


1 361,27 




ZAR


South African rand


17,6043 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2728 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5205 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 388,85 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7831 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,727 




RUB


Russian rouble


88,0011 




THB


Thai baht


38,033 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3361 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2684 




INR


Indian rupee


84,9445 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-34/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, Afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2022 — VN v Belgische Staat
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU banking union, credit institution, equal treatment, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, market access, provision of services








C_2022213EN.01002101.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, Afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2022 — VN v Belgische Staat
(Case C-34/22)
(2022/C 213/28)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, Afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VN

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 21(1)(5) of the ITC 1992, as amended by Article 170 of the Law of 25 April 2014 on various provisions, infringe the provisions of Articles 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, in that the provision in question, although it applies without distinction to domestic and foreign service providers, not only requires compliance with conditions analogous to those set out in Article 2 RD/ITC 1992, which are de facto specific to the Belgian market, but also requires, first of all, that such analogous requirements be laid down by the public authorities in the EEA State concerned, thus going beyond local prudential supervision and falling instead within the scope of the deposit guarantee scheme pursuant to Directive No 94/19/EC, [thereby] seriously imped[ing] foreign service providers from offering their services in Belgium? (1)



(1)  Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).
SIT 2022 – Call for proposals Ideas that change the world: the EIB Institute’s 2022 Social Innovation Tournament 2022/C 23/05
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: European Investment Bank
Subjects: European social policy, environmental impact, innovation, invitation to tender, social impact








C_2022023EN.01001101.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/11






SIT 2022 – Call for proposals
Ideas that change the world: the EIB Institute’s 2022 Social Innovation Tournament
(2022/C 23/05)
EIB Institute organises its 11th Social Innovation Tournament
The SIT promotes innovative ideas and rewards initiatives that create social and environmental impact, covering projects in a wide range of fields — from education, healthcare and job creation, to new technologies, systems and processes. All projects compete for two prizes in a General Category, and projects addressing this year’s topic of the blue and green economy will also compete for two prizes in the Special Category. The winning projects in both categories will be awarded a first or second prize of EUR 75 000 or EUR 30 000, and an Audience Choice Award of EUR 10 000.
Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/EibInstitute
For further information on this tournament and how to submit an innovative proposal, go to: http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/
Case T-25/22: Action brought on 17 January 2022 — Canai Technology/EUIPO — WE Brand (HE&ME)
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01004401.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/44






Action brought on 17 January 2022 — Canai Technology/EUIPO — WE Brand (HE&ME)
(Case T-25/22)
(2022/C 95/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Canai Technology Co. Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez, Y. Hernández Viñes and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark HE&ME — International registration designating the European Union No 1 426 777

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2021 in Case R 1390/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO (and if it intervenes, the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO) to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10535 – GIP / APG / AUSTRALIANSUPER / PEEL GROUP / PEEL PORTS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 31/04
Date: 2022-01-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Europe, Ireland, United Kingdom, economic concentration, harbour installation, investment company, maritime shipping, merger control, pension scheme, provision of services, subsidiary








C_2022031EN.01000601.xml










21.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10535 – GIP / APG / AUSTRALIANSUPER / PEEL GROUP / PEEL PORTS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 31/04)
On 17 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 32022M10535. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.