do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 March 2022 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 March 2022 2022/C 102/04
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2022102EN.01000501.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/5






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 March 2022
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 March 2022
(2022/C 102/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1162 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,15 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83290 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6893 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0247 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8598 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,465 




HUF


Hungarian forint


379,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7947 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9490 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,5509 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5365 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4158 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7234 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6484 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5150 




KRW


South Korean won


1 342,60 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2145 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0462 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5670 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 033,36 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6802 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,295 




RUB


Russian rouble


117,2010 




THB


Thai baht


36,505 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,7598 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8558 




INR


Indian rupee


84,5015 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-151/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 March 2022 — S, A, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; Other party: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, foreign national, freedom of opinion, political ideology, repression, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2022213EN.01002801.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 March 2022 — S, A, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; Other party: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(Case C-151/22)
(2022/C 213/38)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: S, A, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Other party: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 10(1)(e) of the Qualification Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that political opinion as a reason for persecution may also be invoked by applicants who merely claim to hold a political view, and/or to express such a view, without having attracted the negative interest of an actor of persecution during their residence in their country of origin and since their residence in the host country?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, and a political view is thus sufficient to qualify as a political opinion, what weight must be given to the strength of that political view, thought or belief and to the importance to the foreign national of the activities stemming from it in the examination and assessment of an asylum application, that is to say, the examination of the reality of that applicant’s alleged fear of persecution?










3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is the criterion then that such a political opinion must be deeply rooted, and if not, what is the relevant criterion and how is it to be applied?










4.


If the criterion is that the political opinion must be deeply rooted, can an applicant who fails to demonstrate that he or she holds a deeply rooted political opinion be expected to refrain from expressing that political opinion upon return to the country of origin, so as not to arouse the negative interest of an actor of persecution?






(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
Case C-153/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-683/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2022303EN.01001002.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/10






Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-683/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-153/22 P)
(2022/C 303/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG
By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) refused to allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-115/22: Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Belshyna v Council
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2022171EN.01004201.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/42






Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Belshyna v Council
(Case T-115/22)
(2022/C 171/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Belshyna AAT (Bobruisk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and










—


order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action.





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 that by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure.






(1)  OJ L 430 I, p. 16.


(2)  OJ L 430 I, p. 1.
Case T-117/22: Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








C_2022222EN.01003002.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/30






Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council
(Case T-117/22)
(2022/C 222/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Grodno Azot AAT (Grodno, Belarus) and Khimvolokno Plant (Grodno) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and










—


order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that by including the applicants in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicants claim that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure.






(1)  OJ L 430 I, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 430 I, p. 1.
Case T-688/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — VeriGraft v Eismea (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Termination of the agreement — Misconduct — Capacity as beneficiary of the grant or as a natural person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, eligibility criteria, innovation, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises, termination of a contract








C_2022191EN.01002601.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/26






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — VeriGraft v Eismea
(Case T-688/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Termination of the agreement - Misconduct - Capacity as beneficiary of the grant or as a natural person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf)
(2022/C 191/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration of invalidity of the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) of the grant agreement concerning the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P TEV’, concluded in the context of the instrument to support innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises of Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises of the grant agreement for the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, bearing reference 778620, is invalid;










2.


Orders the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Case T-171/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR — Earlier EU word mark HONOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, electronic game, publishing, registered trade mark, software, sporting event, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01003201.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/32






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)
(Case T-171/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR - Earlier EU word mark HONOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 171/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ubisoft Entertainment (Carentoir, France) (represented by: J.B. Bourgeois, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2021 (Case R 1297/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Huawei Technologies and Ubisoft Entertainment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ubisoft Entertainment to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case T-140/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (apo-discounter.de) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark apo-discounter.de — Partial revocation — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, household article, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2022191EN.01002701.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/27






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (apo-discounter.de)
(Case T-140/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark apo-discounter.de - Partial revocation - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use)
(2022/C 191/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 December 2020 (Case R 1439/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Kerckhoff and Apologistics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case C-165/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by MO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-587/20, MO v Council
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, damages, reassignment, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2022326EN.01000302.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/3






Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by MO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-587/20, MO v Council
(Case C-165/22 P)
(2022/C 326/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
By order of 15 July 2022, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Case T-125/21: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EUROBIC — Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE — Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, banking, electronic money, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01003002.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/30






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Banco de Investimento Global v EUIPO — Banco BIC Português (EUROBIC)
(Case T-125/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EUROBIC - Earlier EU figurative marks BiG, BANCO BiG and BiGlobal TRADE - Earlier national word marks BANCO BIG and earlier national figurative mark BANCO BiG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 171/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Banco de Investimento Global, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lucas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Banco BIC Português, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 607/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Banco de Investimento Global and Banco BIC Português.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Banco de Investimento Global, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.