do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-100/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ciar v EUIPO — Motion (Sorting device)
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lift








C_2022148EN.01004701.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/47






Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ciar v EUIPO — Motion (Sorting device)
(Case T-100/22)
(2022/C 148/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Ciar SpA (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: L. Goglia, S. Lavagnini, B. Villa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Motion SpA (Forlì, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design (Sorting device) — Community design No 002 237 495-0009

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2021 in Case R 50/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, therefore, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division or, in any event, declare the invalidity of the contested design;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement and incorrect application of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement and incorrect application of Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case C-121/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-595/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal product, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01001301.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/13






Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-595/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)
(Case C-121/22 P)
(2022/C 294/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor, and C. Milbradt, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Fontana Food AB
By order of 15 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.
Case T-90/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, arms trade, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice








C_2022148EN.01004101.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/41






Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council
(Case T-90/22)
(2022/C 148/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should






—


annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in the annex to that decision;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex I to that regulation;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence. In that respect, the applicant raises a number of complaints regarding the infringement of his rights in the course of the procedures which led the Council to adopt and renew the restrictive measures against him and, in particular the infringement of his right to be heard under acceptable conditions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s involvement in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review, which preceded the contested renewal of the restrictive measures and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Decision 2010/788/CFSP.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic








C_2022082EN.01002001.xml










18.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/20






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(2022/C 82/02)






Date of adoption of the decision


4.11.2020




Aid number


SA.59209




Member State


Finland




Region


Finland




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19: Maatalouden alkutuotannon yritysten väliaikainen tuki




Legal basis


Valtionavustuslaki 688/2001




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 70 000 000  EUR
Annual budget: 48 000 000  EUR




Intensity


0 %




Duration


Until 30.6.2021




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







ELY-keskus




PL 1000, 50101 Mikkeli (Keha-keskus)








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 17 February 2022 2022/C 78/02
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022078EN.01000201.xml










18.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

17 February 2022
(2022/C 78/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1370 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,84 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4398 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83493 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5930 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0466 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1225 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,383 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5065 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9432 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,4945 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5786 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4439 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8692 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6950 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5278 




KRW


South Korean won


1 360,70 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9893 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2060 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5330 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 291,53 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7612 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,314 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,3880 




THB


Thai baht


36,537 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,8495 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0367 




INR


Indian rupee


85,2935 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10349 – AMAZON/MGM) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 78/05
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: copyright, culture industry, economic concentration, electronics industry, film industry, merger control, retail trade, service, technology








C_2022078EN.01005301.xml










18.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/53






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10349 – AMAZON/MGM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 78/05)

1.   
On 8 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:






—


Amazon.com, Inc. (‘Amazon’, USA)










—


MGM Holdings Inc. (‘MGM’, USA)




Amazon will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of MGM.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


Amazon operates a range of businesses including retail, entertainment, consumer electronics, and technology services. Amazon is active in the (co-)production of audio-visual (‘AV’) content through Amazon Studios. This content is available alongside third-party content on Amazon’s home entertainment offering, Prime Video, to consumers in the EEA and internationally. In addition, Amazon produces streaming media player devices and supplies other forms of digital content,










—


MGM is active in the production and global distribution of AV content. In particular, MGM is involved in the development, production, financing, and acquisition of films for theatrical release, as well as the production and licensing of films for distribution via all other means, e.g., nontheatrical, free and pay television, physical home video, and all forms of digital home entertainment. In the EEA, MGM distributes its content through third parties. MGM is also active in licensing intellectual property rights for use in consumer products and interactive games.






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.10349 – AMAZON/MGM
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’).
Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (OJ C 500, 10.12.2021)
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic








C_2022082EN.01003601.xml










18.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/36






Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 500 of 10 December 2021
)
(2022/C 82/04)
The publication of State aid case SA.60655 (2020/N) on page 2 should be considered as null and void.
Case C-114/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 February 2022 — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. Sp. z o.o.
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, principle of proportionality, tax law, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2022284EN.01001302.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 February 2022 — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. Sp. z o.o.
(Case C-114/22)
(2022/C 284/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Respondent: W. Sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) (1) and the principles of neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 88(3a)(4)(c) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the Tax on Goods and Services, Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which deprives a taxable person of the right to deduct VAT on the acquisition of a right (asset) deemed to have been made under false pretences within the meaning of the provisions of national civil law, irrespective of whether the result sought was a tax advantage, the granting of which would be contrary to one or more of the objectives of the directive and whether it constituted the principal aim of the contractual approach adopted?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-120/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-593/19, Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal product, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01001202.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/12






Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-593/19, Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)
(Case C-120/22 P)
(2022/C 294/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor, and C. Milbradt, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Fontana Food AB
By order of 15 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Republic of Cyprus should bear its own costs.
Case T-93/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ramazani Shadary v Council
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, arms trade, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice








C_2022148EN.01004301.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/43






Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ramazani Shadary v Council
(Case T-93/22)
(2022/C 148/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should






—


annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that decision;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex I to that regulation;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Case T-89/22: Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Homy Casa v EUIPO — Albatros International (Chairs)
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, furniture industry








C_2022148EN.01004001.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/40






Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Homy Casa v EUIPO — Albatros International (Chairs)
(Case T-89/22)
(2022/C 148/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Homy Casa Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Albatros International GmbH (Nerdlen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Chairs) — Community design No 2745 554-0002

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 in Case R 837/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof.
Notice for the attention of Zimbabwe Defence Industries, an entity to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/227 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/225, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe, apply 2022/C 78 I/01
Date: 2022-02-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








CI2022078EN.01000101.xml










18.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 78/1






Notice for the attention of Zimbabwe Defence Industries, an entity to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/227 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/225, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe, apply
(2022/C 78 I/01)
The following information is brought to the attention of the entity that appears in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/227 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 (3), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/225 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the entity that appears in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.
The attention of the entity concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s), as indicated in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).
The entity concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 November 2022, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include it on the abovementioned list be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussels




BELGIQUE/BELGIUM




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
The attention of the entity concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 42, 16.2.2011, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 38, 18.2.2022, p. 5.

(3)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 38, 18.2.2022, p. 1.