do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 February 2022 2022/C 72/06
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022072EN.01000601.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 February 2022
(2022/C 72/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1417 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,24 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4400 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83958 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5530 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0557 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0732 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,405 




HUF


Hungarian forint


353,38 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5204 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9458 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,4066 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5927 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4498 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9054 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7085 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5339 




KRW


South Korean won


1 363,68 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2736 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2564 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5312 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 339,46 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7832 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,482 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,8550 




THB


Thai baht


37,282 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9263 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,3183 




INR


Indian rupee


85,8535 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-503/21: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2022 — Lagardére, unité médico-sociale v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) 2021/953 — EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate — Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: coronavirus disease, data protection, epidemic, free movement of persons, health certificate, medical data, personal data, vaccination








C_2022171EN.01003901.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/39






Order of the General Court of 14 February 2022 — Lagardére, unité médico-sociale v Commission
(Case T-503/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 171/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Lagardère, unité médico-sociale (Ghlin, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vanlangendonck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti, agent)

Re:

By its action, expressly directed against the European Commission and based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










3.


Lagardère, unité médico-sociale, shall pay the costs.










4.


The Parliament and the Council are to bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Case T-83/22: Action brought on 14 February 2022 — Selimfiber v EUIPO — Qureshi (SPETRA)
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022148EN.01003802.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/38






Action brought on 14 February 2022 — Selimfiber v EUIPO — Qureshi (SPETRA)
(Case T-83/22)
(2022/C 148/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Selimfiber Co. Ltd (Gimpo-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J. Klaus and M. Odink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mohammad Sohail Qureshi (Bradford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SPETRA — Application for registration No 18 271 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 684/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of and occasioned by this application and other incurred costs; alternatively if the other party before the EUIPO intervenes, hold it and the defendant jointly and severally liable for those costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-98/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Eurelec Trading SCRL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, France, civil proceedings, evidence, fine, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, minister, private international law, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice








C_2022198EN.01002501.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Eurelec Trading SCRL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)
(Case C-98/22)
(2022/C 198/36)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Eurelec Trading SCRL

Respondents: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Scabel SA, Groupement d’Achat des Centres Édouard Leclerc (GALEC), Association des Centres distributeurs Édouard Leclerc (ACDLEC)

Question referred

Are ‘civil and commercial’ matters, as defined in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) to be interpreted as including in the scope of that regulation an action — and the judicial decision rendered at the end of the proceedings — (i) brought by the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finances pursuant to (former) Article L 442-6, I, 2o of the French Commercial Code against a Belgian company, (ii) seeking a declaration of the existence of restrictive practices, an order that they cease and an order that the alleged perpetrator of those practices pay a civil fine, (iii) on the basis of evidence obtained in the exercise of his specific powers of investigation?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case T-80/22: Action brought on 14 February 2022 — OF v Commission
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, child, damages, family benefit, indemnification, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), stepfamily








C_2022138EN.01003201.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/32






Action brought on 14 February 2022 — OF v Commission
(Case T-80/22)
(2022/C 138/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OF (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


primarily,






—


annul the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing an extension of family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren;










—


annul the decision of 10 May 2021 of PMO.1 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021;










—


annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint dated 12 November 2021;














—


in the alternative,






—


order the defendant to pay compensation for psychological and material damage resulting from breach of administrative duty on the part of the administration, assessed at EUR 56 504,61;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action for annulment of the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing to extend family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact, erroneous and contradictory reasoning, a heavier burden of proof, failure to taken into account the specific circumstances of the case and infringement of the concept of maintenance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of forseeability, of legal certainty and of consistent application of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and failure to provide adequate reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the principle of affirmative action, unlawful rejection of the legalised certificate, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right of every person to be heard before any decision affecting their interests or situation is taken.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s situation and the reality of financial support for the stepchildren.




In support of her application for annulment of the decision of PMO.1 of 10 May 2021 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021, the applicant relies on two pleas in law






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and of the conditions laid down for the recovery of overpayments.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA Relevance) 2022/C 72/07
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Catalonia, Community of Madrid, Extremadura, Spain, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2022072EN.01000701.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/7






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA Relevance)
(2022/C 72/07)






Member State


Spain




Routes concerned


Badajoz – Madrid
Badajoz - Barcelona




Reopening date of the PSO routes to community air carriers


28 October 2022




Address where the text and any other information or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained.







Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda




Urbana




Dirección General de Aviación Civil




Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo




Paseo de la Castellana 67




28071 Madrid




ESPAÑA




Tel. +34 915977505




Fax +34 915978643




Email address: osp.dgac@mitma.es








The routes subject to public service obligations may be operated on the basis of free competition access as from 28 October 2022. In the event that no air carrier submits a program of services compliant with the public service obligations imposed, access will be restricted to a single air carrier through the corresponding public tender procedure, in accordance with Article 16 (9) of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008.
Case C-99/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Kapniki A. Michailides AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elegchou Koinotikon Enischyseon Prosanatolismou kai Eggyiseon (OPEKEPE), Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon
Date: 2022-02-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: farm prices, fixing of prices, quality control of agricultural products, retroactivity of a law, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2022191EN.01001701.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Kapniki A. Michailides AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elegchou Koinotikon Enischyseon Prosanatolismou kai Eggyiseon (OPEKEPE), Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon
(Case C-99/22)
(2022/C 191/22)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Kapniki A. Michailides SA

Respondents: Organismos Pliromon kai Elegchou Koinotikon Enischyseon Prosanatolismou kai Eggyiseon (OPEKEPE), Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

Question referred

Does Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992, (1) which states that, where the quantity of tobacco of low class purchased by a processor exceeds, relative to his total purchases of the variety in question, the percentage indicated in Annex IV, the premium shall be reduced by 30 % in respect of the quantity in excess of the percentage in question, infringe the principle of the non-retroactivity of legal rules and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations?


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing, for the 1992 harvest, the norm and intervention prices and the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, and the production areas (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 22).