do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-69/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, atmospheric pollutant, infringement of EU law, pollution control, reduction of gas emissions








C_2022171EN.01001702.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/17






Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-69/22)
(2022/C 171/22)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Ioan, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt and notify to the European Commission a National Air Pollution Control Programme, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 14 December 2016] on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1)











—


order Romania to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, commitments have been made to reduce emissions of five key atmospheric pollutants for the period 2020-2029, beginning in 2030. With a view to honouring those commitments to reduce emissions and in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union’s air quality objectives, Member States are requested, by Article 6(1) of that directive, to adopt a National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP).
Under Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284, Romania was required to notify the Commission of its NAPCP by 1 April 2019 at the latest, and any planned actions by the Romanian authorities should have been commenced before that date.
Therefore, the Commission submits that, by failing to adopt and notify the Commission of its NAPCP before the date of the present application, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284.


(1)  OJ 2016 L 344, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 February 2022 2022/C 55/01
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022055EN.01000101.xml










2.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

1 February 2022
(2022/C 55/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1260 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,12 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4407 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83498 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4438 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0374 




ISK


Iceland króna


143,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9638 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,335 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,38 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5804 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9465 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,0644 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5868 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4299 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7779 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7032 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5199 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,61 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1633 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1625 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5275 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 126,29 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7129 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,516 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,3238 




THB


Thai baht


37,378 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9572 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1296 




INR


Indian rupee


84,1970 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-536/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — LU v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Dignity at Work Policy — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Action for annulment — Final report of the investigation panel — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility — Decision rejecting the complaint — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Liability)
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, damages, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence








C_2022128EN.01002101.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/21






Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — LU v EIB
(Case T-536/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Dignity at Work Policy - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Action for annulment - Final report of the investigation panel - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility - Decision rejecting the complaint - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Liability)
(2022/C 128/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LU (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and to Article 50a(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, in essence, annulment of the final report issued by the Dignity at Work Panel on 13 May 2020 and of the decision of the President of the EIB of 26 May 2020 rejecting the harassment complaint lodged by the applicant and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 26 May 2020 rejecting the harassment complaint made by LU;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the EIB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Case T-173/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — CU.CO. (grill dish) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a grill dish — Earlier national design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household article








C_2022128EN.01002301.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/23






Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — CU.CO. (grill dish)
(Case T-173/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a grill dish - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
(2022/C 128/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Novelis Deutschland GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: U. Herberth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cuki Cofresco Srl (CU.CO.) (Volpiano, Italy) (represented by: L. Saglietti and E. Bianco, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2021 (Case R 1856/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cuki Cofresco and Novelis Deutschland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Novelis Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Case T-399/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Rejection of a complaint) (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Gas markets of central and eastern Europe — Decision rejecting a complaint — No EU interest — State action defence — Obligation to conduct a diligent examination — Procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 773/2004)
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Poland, dominant position, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, price of energy








C_2022128EN.01001801.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/18






Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Rejection of a complaint)
(Case T-399/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Gas markets of central and eastern Europe - Decision rejecting a complaint - No EU interest - State action defence - Obligation to conduct a diligent examination - Procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 773/2004)
(2022/C 128/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, T. Kaźmierczak, K. Kicun and P. Moskwa, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Gazprom PJSC (Moscow, Russia), and Gazprom export LLC (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Karenfort, J. Hainz, B. Evtimov, N. Tuominen and J. Heithecker, lawyers, as well as D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the European Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices);










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.;










3.


Orders Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case T-68/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022128EN.01003201.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/32






Action brought on 2 February 2022 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)
(Case T-68/22)
(2022/C 128/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josef Pichler (St. Leonhard in Passeier, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Joro — Application for registration No 18 136 261

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 2336/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 November 2020 is annulled in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of:
Ginseng liquor; Japanese liquor flavoured with Japanese plum extracts; Red ginseng liquor; Hulless barley liquor; Tonic liquor flavoured with japanese plum extracts (umeshu); Alcoholic cocktail mixes; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Alcoholic tea-based beverages; Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer; Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; Aperitifs; Japanese sweet grape wine containing extracts of ginseng and cinchona bark; Black raspberry wine [Bokbunjaju]; Alcoholic beverages of fruit; Wine coolers [drinks]; Fruit extracts, alcoholic
and that the EU trade mark application No 18 136 261 is also rejected in respect of those goods;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


order 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.
Case T-202/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte — Earlier EU word mark TRILUX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022128EN.01002401.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/24






Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)
(Case T-202/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte - Earlier EU word mark TRILUX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 128/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Säckingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis and F. Hauck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos LTDA (Pirassununga, Brazil) (represented by: J. Blum, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 818/2020 4) relating to opposition proceedings between VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos and Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Case T-27/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Indictment of the main shareholder in a third country — Criterion of good repute — Perception of good repute by the market — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, credit institution, financial supervision, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, shareholder, third country, trade licence








C_2022128EN.01001602.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/16






Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
(Case T-27/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Indictment of the main shareholder in a third country - Criterion of good repute - Perception of good repute by the market - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Rights of the defence)
(2022/C 128/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta), Pilatus Holding Ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, M. Puidokas and A. Karpf, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the ECB of 2 November 2018 withdrawing the authorisation of Pilatus Bank to take up the business of a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pilatus Bank plc and Pilatus Holding Ltd. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10512 – LEAR CORPORATION / INTERIOR COMFORT SYSTEMS BUSINESS OF KONGSBERG AUTOMOTIVE GROUP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 55 I/01
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








CI2022055EN.01000101.xml










2.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 55/1






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10512 – LEAR CORPORATION / INTERIOR COMFORT SYSTEMS BUSINESS OF KONGSBERG AUTOMOTIVE GROUP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 55 I/01)

1.   
On 24 January 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Lear Corporation (‘Lear’, USA),










—


The interior comfort systems business of Kongsberg Automotive ASA (‘Interior comfort systems business of Kongsberg’, Norway).




Lear will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the Interior comfort systems business of Kongsberg.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets and shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


Lear: supplying automotive seating, wire harnesses and electronics to major automakers,










—


Interior comfort systems business of Kongsberg: designing, manufacturing and supplying seat heating, seat ventilation, lumbar support and massage equipment, panel heating, ancillary electronic units, and system components for passenger cars.






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.



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.10512 – LEAR CORPORATION / INTERIOR COMFORT SYSTEMS BUSINESS OF KONGSBERG AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
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’).
Case T-65/22: Action brought on 2 February 2022 — PS v EIB
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, disability insurance, disabled person, insurance indemnity, occupational accident, occupational accident insurance, worker with disabilities








C_2022128EN.01003102.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/31






Action brought on 2 February 2022 — PS v EIB
(Case T-65/22)
(2022/C 128/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PS (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 12 July 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim lodged on 21 May 2021;










—


order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant the allowance referred to in Article 11 of the AXA insurance policy, for permanent invalidity, at the maximum rate, as well as the benefits provided for in Article 9.1.13 of the Staff Rules, in addition to the sum of EUR 24 000 for the non-material damage caused;










—


order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the EIB’s decision of 12 July 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim for damages lodged on 21 May 2021, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to effective social security for workers under Articles 31(1) and 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the European Social Charter.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and the right to have affairs handled within a reasonable time, and failure on the part of the EIB to discharge its duty of care.
Case T-116/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark WILD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, gaming establishment, online game, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022128EN.01002202.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/22






Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)
(Case T-116/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark WILD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 128/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 932/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.