do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 10 February 2022 2022/C 70/03
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022070EN.01000301.xml










11.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 February 2022
(2022/C 70/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1439 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,42 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4404 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84248 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5275 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0571 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0693 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,350 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,02 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4921 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9451 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,4838 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5894 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4498 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9142 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7076 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5345 




KRW


South Korean won


1 367,52 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3078 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2722 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5275 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 390,21 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7855 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,583 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,0187 




THB


Thai baht


37,331 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9668 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,3584 




INR


Indian rupee


85,9373 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-53/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, admissibility, appointment of members, political group (EP), powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2022148EN.01002701.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/27






Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID
(Case T-53/22 R)
(Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 148/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Identity and Democracy political group (ID)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 January 2022 by which the applicant was suspended from that group and of the decision of the members of the ID political group of 25 January 2022 by which the applicant was excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-736/20: Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — OP v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), equal treatment, recruitment








C_2022148EN.01002401.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/24






Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — OP v Commission
(Case T-736/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment)
(2022/C 148/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OP (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 of 5 February 2020 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list of that competition.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


OP shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Case T-54/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, admissibility, appointment of members, political group (EP), powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2022148EN.01002702.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/27






Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID
(Case T-54/22 R)
(Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 148/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Identity and Democracy political group (ID)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 21 January 2022 by which the applicant was suspended from that group and of the decision of the members of the ID political group of 25 January 2022 by which he was excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-75/22: Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Prigozhin v Council
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, paramilitary force








C_2022148EN.01003501.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/35






Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Prigozhin v Council
(Case T-75/22)
(2022/C 148/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin admissible and




in so far as they concern the applicant






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 of 13 December 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 of 13 December 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses
in so far as those two decisions name him as the financier of the Wagner Group;










—


declare that in any event the name of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin should be immediately withdrawn from the contested measures;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Council failed to comply with the duty to state reasons for the contested measures by not adducing any specific evidence justifying the reference to the applicant’s name in the body of the contested decisions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. The applicant submits, in that regard, that in the absence of evidence to support his description as ‘financier of the Wagner Group’, the Council could not name him indirectly in the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group and thus distort the objective initially pursued by the measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant maintains that he is not the financier of the Wagner Group and that there is no connection between him and that entity.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that by listing his name in the body of the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group, the Council violated Articles 10, 6 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Case T-81/22: Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Euranimi v Commission
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence, steel








C_2022148EN.01003701.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/37






Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Euranimi v Commission
(Case T-81/22)
(2022/C 148/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia, (1) as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 November 2021, concerning the measures adopted in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding AD670;










—


order the European Commission to bear applicant’s legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) with regard to the cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned — infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence — manifest error of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, with regard to the injury and causation assessment for both Indian and Indonesia’s originating products — manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging wrong assessment of the Union interest justifying the imposition of anti-dumping duties.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (OJ 2021 L 410, p. 153).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).
Case C-96/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 February 2022 — Companhia de Distribuição Integral Logística Portugal, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, excise duty, free movement of goods, import (EU), import restriction, market approval, quantitative restriction, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2022198EN.01002402.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 February 2022 — Companhia de Distribuição Integral Logística Portugal, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-96/22)
(2022/C 198/35)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Companhia de Distribuição Integral Logística Portugal, S.A.

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Do the quantitative limits on the release for consumption established by Article 106 of the Código dos Impostos Especiais do Consumo (Excise Duty Code, ‘the CIEC’) constitute quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, in so far as Article 106 stipulates that, during the last four months of each year, the quantities of cigarettes sold by operators may not exceed the average monthly quantity of cigarettes released for consumption in the 12 months immediately preceding?










2.


Is it contrary to the rules on the chargeability of excise duty established by Articles 7 and 9 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 to levy tax on any quantities of cigarettes that exceed the quantitative limit on the release for consumption established under Article 106(2) of the CIEC at the rate applicable on the date on which the declaration of discharge is lodged, in accordance with Article 106(7) of the CIEC?






(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10543 – BISCUIT HOLDING / CONTINENTAL BAKERIES HOLDING) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 70/04
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bread-making, cereal product, cereal substitute, confectionery, economic concentration, merger control








C_2022070EN.01000401.xml










11.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10543 – BISCUIT HOLDING / CONTINENTAL BAKERIES HOLDING)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 70/04)

1.   
On 4 February 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:






—


Biscuit Holding S.A.S. (‘Biscuit International’, France), controlled by Platinum Equity










—


Continental Bakeries Holding B.V. (‘Continental Bakeries’, The Netherlands)




Biscuit International will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Continental Bakeries.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


Biscuit International manufactures principally private label sweet biscuits, although it is also active in co-manufacturing of branded biscuits. Biscuit International operates mainly in Europe and has limited sales in the US, Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America.










—


Continental Bakeries manufactures sweet biscuits, bread replacements and toast. It focuses on private label products, although it also has its own biscuit brands. It operates primarily in Europe and has limited sales in the US, Africa, and Asia Pacific.






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.10543 – BISCUIT HOLDING / CONTINENTAL BAKERIES HOLDING
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-459/21: Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Sunwhite — Earlier national figurative mark Sunwhite — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, rice, trade-mark law








C_2022148EN.01002501.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/25






Order of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)
(Case T-459/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Sunwhite - Earlier national figurative mark Sunwhite - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 148/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Hamel and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and C. Böhmer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 (Case R 2465/2020 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ricegrowers and Calrose Rice.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Calrose Rice shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10515 –ILIAD / UPC POLSKA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 70/05
Date: 2022-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Poland, economic concentration, merger control, parent company, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2022070EN.01000601.xml










11.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10515 –ILIAD / UPC POLSKA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 70/05)

1.   
On 3 February 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:






—


Iliad S.A. (France), parent company of the Iliad Group (‘Iliad’), controlled by Mr. Xavier Niel










—


UPC Polska sp. z o.o. (‘UPC’, Poland), controlled by Liberty Global Inc.




Iliad S.A. will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect control of the whole of UPC.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


For Iliad S.A.: provision of telecommunication services in France, Italy and in Poland. IIliad S.A. is the parent company of Iliad, which is ultimately controlled by Mr. Xavier Niel. Mr. Xavier Niel ultimately controls other companies active in various sectors. In the sector of telecommunications, Xavier Niel’s Group is active in Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, France, in Italy and Poland.










—


For UPC: provision of fixed telephony services, fixed internet services, pay TV services, as well as business connectivity and mobile telecommunication services in Poland.






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.10515 –ILIAD / UPC POLSKA
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’).