do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-41/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2022 — XXX v Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, insurance contract, life assurance, limitation of legal proceedings, proof, termination of a contract








C_2022198EN.01002101.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2022 — XXX v Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG
(Case C-41/22)
(2022/C 198/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XXX

Defendant: Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law, in particular Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (1) Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (2) and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation or case-law under which a policyholder — who has legitimately exercised his or her right of cancellation — is required to bear the burden of demonstration and proof for the purpose of quantifying the benefits of use derived by the insurer itself? Where such an imposition of the burden of demonstration and proof is permissible, does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, require that the policyholder enjoy, in return, rights to information or some other assistance from the insurer that will enable him or her to enforce his or her rights?










2.


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










3.


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






(1)  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).

(2)  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).

(3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).
Case T-27/22: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022109EN.01003002.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/30






Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)
(Case T-27/22)
(2022/C 109/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL (Alhama de Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel Benito Oliver (Pont D’Inca-Marratxi, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark th pharma — Application for registration No 17 916 522

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 1605/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10411 – ABM / YKA / HEBEI MAURI) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 69/03
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, merger control, retail selling, vegetable oil








C_2022069EN.01000301.xml










10.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10411 – ABM / YKA / HEBEI MAURI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 69/03)
On 18 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 32022M10411. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10590 – PAI PARTNERS / OTPP / VEONET) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 25/05
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, eye disease, medical institution, merger control, pension fund








C_2022025EN.01002101.xml










18.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/21







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10590 – PAI PARTNERS / OTPP / VEONET)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 25/05)


1.   
On 10 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:






—


PAI Partners Sàrl (‘PAI Partners’, France), controlled by PAI Partners SAS;










—


Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada); and,










—


Veonet GmbH and all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries (‘Veonet Group’, Germany)




PAI Partners and OTPP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation indirect joint control of Veonet Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for PAI Partners: private equity firm, managing a number of funds investing in the business services, food & consumer, general industrials, and healthcare sectors,










—


for OTPP: corporation administering pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets on behalf of active and retired teachers in Ontario,










—


for Veonet Group: clinic network of ophthalmological care and outpatient treatment for major causes of blindness and visual impairment, offering diagnosis as well as surgical and non-invasive treatment of eye disorders.






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 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.10590 – PAI PARTNERS / OTPP / VEONET
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-39/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by Enol Velasco Granda and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-658/21, Velasco Granda and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, framework agreement, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, public sector, temporary employment








C_2022408EN.01002502.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/25






Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by Enol Velasco Granda and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-658/21, Velasco Granda and Others v Commission
(Case C-39/22 P)
(2022/C 408/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Enol Velasco Granda, María José Díaz Rodríguez, Silvia García Miguélez, Beatriz González Carvajal, Antonia Trinidad González Castro, Isabel Merediz Gutiérrez, María Miranda García, Ana Moreira Varillas, Lucía Villa Gutiérrez (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 17 January 2022 2022/C 26/01
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022026EN.01000101.xml










18.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

17 January 2022
(2022/C 26/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1403 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4417 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83573 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3050 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0429 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9623 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,467 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,09 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5256 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9443 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,2757 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5811 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4287 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8844 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6765 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5374 




KRW


South Korean won


1 359,89 




ZAR


South African rand


17,6010 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2402 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5275 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 337,73 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7704 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,496 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,3907 




THB


Thai baht


37,761 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2808 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1901 




INR


Indian rupee


84,7295 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.