do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-771/21: Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság — Hungary) — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, bad weather, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2022222EN.01002602.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/26






Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság — Hungary) — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)
(Case C-771/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/42)
Language of the case: Hungarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10604 – OXFORD PROPERTIES / PINEBRIDGE BENSON ELLIOT / SIGMA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 85/01
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2022085EN.01000101.xml










22.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10604 – OXFORD PROPERTIES / PINEBRIDGE BENSON ELLIOT / SIGMA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 85/01)
On 15 February 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 (Dhttp://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 32022M10604. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-828/21 P: Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2022 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical compound, copper, dangerous substance, market approval, plant health product, principle of proportionality








C_2022222EN.01002604.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/26






Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2022 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union
(Case C-828/21 P) (1)

(2022/C 222/44)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Case T-295/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU control, EU programme, Internet, admissibility, audit, debt, eligibility criteria, information security, rule of law








C_2022171EN.01003602.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/36






Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko v Commission
(Case T-295/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 171/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2021) 1955613 of 18 March 2021 concerning a recovery order for project SI 2010 SIC 1231002 (‘Safer Internet SK SIC’).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Case T-82/22: Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2022148EN.01003801.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/38






Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)
(Case T-82/22)
(2022/C 148/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Application for registration No 18 105 815

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2021 in Case R 1702/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-665/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — Civitta Eesti v Commission
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, public procurement, right to justice, tendering








C_2022148EN.01004802.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/48






Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — Civitta Eesti v Commission
(Case T-665/21) (1)

(2022/C 148/66)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.
Case C-104/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Lännen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, establishment, jurisdiction, registered trade mark, search engine, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01001901.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Lännen MCE Oy v Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-104/22)
(2022/C 171/24)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lännen MCE Oy

Defendants: Berky GmbH, Senwatec GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

Company A is established in Member State X, where it has its registered office, and has used on a website a sign identical to an EU trade mark belonging to Company B, in advertising or as a keyword.






1.


In the situation described above, may it be concluded that the advertising is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y, where Company B has its registered office, and does an EU trade mark court in Member State Y have jurisdiction to hear an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (1) under Article 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation where, in the advertising published electronically or on an advertiser’s website connected to that advertising via a link, the geographical area where the goods are to be supplied is not specified, at least not expressly, or no individual Member State is expressly excluded from that area? May the nature of the goods to which the advertising relates and the fact that the market for Company A’s products is allegedly global and thus covers the entire territory of the European Union, including Member State Y, be taken into account in that respect?










2.


May it be concluded that the above advertising is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y if it appears on a search engine website operated under the national top-level domain of Member State Y?










3.


If Question 1 or 2 is answered in the affirmative, what other factors, if any, should be taken into account in determining whether the advertisement is directed at consumers or traders in Member State Y?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 February 2022 2022/C 74/03
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022074EN.01000501.xml










15.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 February 2022
(2022/C 74/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1316 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,60 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4411 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83720 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6158 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0472 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0693 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,527 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,06 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5400 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9457 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,3510 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5902 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4431 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8283 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7112 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5247 




KRW


South Korean won


1 354,50 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1310 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1937 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5293 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 190,53 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7420 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,114 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,3480 




THB


Thai baht


36,800 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,8965 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1331 




INR


Indian rupee


85,4715 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-106/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft. v Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: coronavirus disease, direct investment, economic concentration, epidemic, foreign investment, investment company, merger control, state of emergency








C_2022207EN.01001501.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft. v Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter
(Case C-106/22)
(2022/C 207/21)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft.

Defendant: Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter

Questions referred







1.


Having regard to recitals 4 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2019/452 (1) establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union and to Article 4(2) TEU, must Article 65(1)(b) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it permits the laying down of rules such as those in Paragraph 85 of veszélyhelyzet megszűnésével összefüggő átmeneti szabályokról és a járványügyi készültségről szóló 2020. évi LVIII. törvény (Law LVIII of 2020 on transitional provisions relating to the end of the state of emergency and to the pandemic crisis), and in particular those in Paragraph 276(1) and (2)(a) and Paragraph 283(1)(b) of that law?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the mere fact that the Commission has conducted a merger control procedure, exercised its powers and authorised a concentration affecting the chain of ownership of a foreign indirect investor preclude the exercise of the decision-making power under the applicable law of the Member State?






(1)  OJ 2019 L 79I, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (12617/2021 — C9-0420/2021 — 2021/0184(NLE))
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament
Subjects: Pacific Ocean, accession to an agreement, conservation of fish stocks, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing rights, international convention, marine ecosystem, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries








C_2022342EN.01031501.xml










6.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/315






P9_TA(2022)0020
Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean: accession of the European Union ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (12617/2021 — C9-0420/2021 — 2021/0184(NLE))
(Consent)
(2022/C 342/28)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12617/2021),










—


having regard to Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (12617/2021 ADD 1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0420/2021),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0008/2022),












1.


Gives its consent to the draft Council decision;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the government of the Republic of Korea, as the depository for the Convention.
Case T-425/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, Internet, admissibility, eligibility criteria, information security, rule of law, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2022171EN.01003702.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/37






Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission
(Case T-425/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 171/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 7415 final of 21 October 2020 amending Implementing Decision C(2018) 6712 on the selection and award of grants under the Connecting Europe Facility in the sector of Telecommunication.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Case T-304/21: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial provisions — EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet — Designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Internet, admissibility, eligibility criteria, information security, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rule of law








C_2022171EN.01003701.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/37






Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission
(Case T-304/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 171/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2021) 1953853 of 30 March 2021 to terminate the grant agreement concluded with the applicant concerning project 2015 SK IA 0038 (‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Case C-105/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — P.M. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie
Date: 2022-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, export, freedom to provide services, motor car, principle of proportionality, tax law, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_2022207EN.01001402.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — P.M. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie
(Case C-105/22)
(2022/C 207/20)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: P.M.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Question referred

Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union …, the principle that excise duty is a single-stage tax on actual consumption, and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law such as Article 107(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 6 grudnia 2008 r. o podatku akcyzowym (Law of 6 December 2008 on Excise Duty) … in so far as it precludes the reimbursement to a taxable person of excise duty upon the export of a registered passenger car, calculated in proportion to the period during which that car was used in the national territory?