do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission 2022/C 142/03
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








C_2022142EN.01001101.xml










30.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/11






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission
(2022/C 142/03)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






i.


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and










ii.


made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:






i.


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 24 March 2022 –




[https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/90th-management-board-web-meeting], and






ii.


the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg.




EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10404 – PHOENIX / MCKESSON) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 143/01
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, health care, logistics, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, provision of services, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2023143EN.01000101.xml










26.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 143/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10404 – PHOENIX / MCKESSON)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 143/01)
On 30 March 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 (http://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 32022M10404. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-166/22: Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Seifert v Council
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, discrimination on the basis of nationality, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022222EN.01003101.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/31






Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Seifert v Council
(Case T-166/22)
(2022/C 222/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Evgenia Seifert (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Seifert, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1(9) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/328 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;










—


order the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings including expenses necessarily incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, Article 1(9) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/328 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (1) discriminates against her on grounds of her origin as a Russian national and, therefore, infringes Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms read in conjunction with her rights enshrined in Article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In that respect, the Council cannot rely on a time of emergency under Article 15(1) of that convention and on a derogation within the meaning of Article 15(3) of that convention.


(1)  OJ 2022 L 49, p. 1.
Case T-168/22: Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022207EN.01004901.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/49






Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
(Case T-168/22)
(2022/C 207/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

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 GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 January 2022 in Case R 1612/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the applicant’s appeal;










—


order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal’s analysis of distinctive character erred substantially;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in failing to find a likelihood of confusion;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in failing to deliver to the applicant a fair trial on all of the issues.
Case T-451/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (Testa Rossa) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Testa Rossa — Earlier EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, household article, household electrical appliance, recreational fishing, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2022207EN.01004002.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/40






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (Testa Rossa)
(Case T-451/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Testa Rossa - Earlier EU figurative mark TESTA ROSSA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 207/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tyrol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2021 (Case R 878/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wedl & Hofmann and Mr Hesse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 29 March 2022 2022/C 142/02
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022142EN.01001001.xml










30.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/10






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 March 2022
(2022/C 142/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1085 




JPY


Japanese yen


136,66 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4388 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84440 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3290 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0362 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5995 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,464 




HUF


Hungarian forint


369,80 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6594 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9478 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,3275 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4795 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3870 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6767 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6054 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5051 




KRW


South Korean won


1 345,62 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1804 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0550 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5815 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 896,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6707 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,602 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,290 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2434 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1561 




INR


Indian rupee


83,9685 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-226/21: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Representation of an eagle) (European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, personal effects, registered trade mark, retail trade, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2022237EN.01005201.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/52






Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Representation of an eagle)
(Case T-226/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 237/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2813/2019-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Fashion Energy and Retail Royalty.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Retail Royalty Co. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case T-206/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing two animals — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an animal — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, clothing, decorative item, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, paper, registered trade mark, service, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022207EN.01003901.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/39






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)
(Case T-206/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two animals - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an animal - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 207/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Oliver Kalita (Jochberg, Austria), Christian Haas (Kitzbühel, Austria) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Kitzbühel) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Kitzbühel Tourismus and, on the other, Mr Kalita and Mr Haas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2021-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Oliver Kalita and Mr Christian Haas;










3.


Orders Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Kalita and Mr Haas.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Case T-280/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background III) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark — Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background III — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, furniture industry, leather, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022213EN.01003802.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/38






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background III)
(Case T-280/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark - Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background III - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 213/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1897/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three-pointed stars on a black background III as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-350/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for airfreight — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport — Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) — Exchange of information — Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission — Ne bis in idem principle — State coercion — Single and continuous infringement — Amount of the fine — Value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: additional duty, air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, jurisdiction, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2022207EN.01003301.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/33






Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission
(Case T-350/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Ne bis in idem principle - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2022/C 207/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented by: J. Kallaugher, J.P. Poitras, Solicitors, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and C. Brown, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it relates to the applicants, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;










3.


Orders Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo to bear their own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Corrigendum to Communication from the Commission - Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia (Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 131 I of 24 March 2022) 2022/C 142/10
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, State aid, Ukraine, economic consequence, economic policy, electrical energy, military intervention, natural gas, price of energy








C_2022142EN.01002901.xml










30.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/29






Corrigendum to Communication from the Commission - Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia

(Official Journal of the European Union 
OJ C 131 I of 24 March 2022
)

(2022/C 142/10)
On page 9, the first paragraph of point 42 should read as follows:







‘42.


By way of derogation from point 41(a), the following specific conditions apply to aid granted to undertakings active in the primary production of agricultural products, fishery and aquaculture sectors, in addition to the conditions of point 41(b) to (d):’.





On page 10, the text of point 43 should read as follows:







’43.


Where an undertaking is active in several sectors to which different maximum amounts apply in accordance with points 41(a) and 42(a), the Member State concerned must ensure, by appropriate means, such as separation of accounts, that the relevant ceiling is respected for each of those activities and that the overall maximum amount of EUR 400 000 is not exceeded per undertaking. Where an undertaking is active in the sectors covered by point 42(a) the overall maximum amount of EUR 35 000 should not be exceeded per undertaking.’.





On page 13, the text of point 52 e. should read as follows:






‘e.


Eligible costs under this measure are calculated based on the increase in natural gas and electricity costs linked to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The eligible cost is the product of the number of units of natural gas and electricity procured by the undertaking from external suppliers as a final consumer in a period between 1 February 2022 and 31 December 2022 at the latest (‘eligible period’) and a certain increase in the price that the undertaking pays per unit consumed (measured for example in EUR/MWh). That price increase shall be calculated as the difference between the unit price paid by the undertaking in a given month in the eligible period and the double (200 %) of the unit price paid by the undertaking on average for the reference period from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2021; ‘.