do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-304/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2022 — PM v Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, civil code, divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, official document








C_2022318EN.01002501.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2022 — PM v Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung
(Case C-304/22)
(2022/C 318/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PM

Defendant: Senatsverwaltung für Justiz, Vielfalt und Antidiskriminierung

Other party to the proceedings: CM

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 1(1)(a), Article 2, point 4, Article 21(1) and Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) are referred for a preliminary ruling:






1.


Is a divorce on the basis of Articles 82, 87, 89 and 90 of the Código Civil (Spanish Civil Code) a divorce within the meaning of the Brussels IIa Regulation?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative: Is a divorce on the basis of Articles 82, 87, 89 and 90 of the Spanish Civil Code to be treated in accordance with the rule contained in Article 46 of the Brussels IIa Regulation regarding authentic instruments and agreements?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1; ‘the Brussels IIa Regulation’.
Corrigendum to Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05) (Official Journal of the European Union C 131 of 24 March 2022) 2022/C 188/01
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: adjuvant, chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, polymer








C_2022188EN.01000101.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/1






Corrigendum to Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05)

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

(2022/C 188/01)
On page 5, in the second column of the table:
for:

‘27 March 2022’,

read:

‘17 March 2022’.
Case T-676/21: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO– The a.r.t. company b&s (art class) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, electronic commerce, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2022284EN.01004101.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/41






Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO– The a.r.t. company b&s (art class)
(Case T-676/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 284/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 (Case R 1596/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The a.r.t. company b&s and Target Brands.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Target Brands, Inc. shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 May 2022 2022/C 189/06
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022189EN.01007301.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/73






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 May 2022
(2022/C 189/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0570 




JPY


Japanese yen


137,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4400 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85625 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4686 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0419 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9808 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,665 




HUF


Hungarian forint


381,47 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7028 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9490 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,8078 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4888 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3560 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2969 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6440 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4642 




KRW


South Korean won


1 343,90 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9614 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0506 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5336 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 312,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6191 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,467 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,303 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3183 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3555 




INR


Indian rupee


81,2980 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-311/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 10 May 2022 — Anklagemyndigheden v PO and Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carcase, industrial pollution, meat processing industry, pollution control, slaughter animal, slaughter of animals, swine








C_2022276EN.01000702.xml










18.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 10 May 2022 — Anklagemyndigheden v PO and Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S
(Case C-311/22)
(2022/C 276/11)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendants: PO and Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S

Questions referred







1.


Is point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘carcass production’ covers the slaughter process, which begins when the animal is removed from lairage, stunned and killed and ends when the large standard cuts are produced, so that the weight of the slaughter animal is to be calculated before the neck and head as well as the organs and entrails are removed, or does ‘carcass production’ mean the production of pig carcasses after the organs and entrails as well as the neck and head have been removed, and after exsanguination and chilling, so that the weight of the slaughter animal should only be calculated at this point in time?










2.


Is point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) to be interpreted as meaning that when determining the number of production days included in the capacity ‘per day’, this should take into account only the days when stunning, killing and immediate cutting up of the slaughter pig are carried out, or should this take into account the days when the operations for dressing the slaughter pigs are carried out, which includes preparing the animal for slaughter, chilling the slaughtered animal and removing the animal’s head and neck?










3.


Is point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘capacity’ of a slaughterhouse is to be calculated as the maximum production per day within 24 hours, subject to the physical, technical or legal constraints actually complied with by the slaughterhouse, but not lower than its achieved production, or can the slaughterhouse’s ‘capacity’ be lower than its achieved production, for example, where the production achieved by a slaughterhouse has been carried out in disregard of the physical, technical or legal constraints on production that are assumed when calculating the slaughterhouse’s ‘capacity’?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17.
Case C-312/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Switzerland, bank, bond, establishment, interest, personal income tax, tax








C_2022294EN.01001601.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-312/22)
(2022/C 294/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: FL

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is it compatible with EU law for income in the form of interest on bonds and debt instruments paid by a non-resident Swiss bank to the appellant in 2005 to be subject to income aggregation and therefore to be taxed at the same rate of income tax as other income, meaning that the applicable rate of tax is far higher than the rate (levy) that would apply had the income in question been paid by a bank resident in national territory?
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 9 May 2022 2022/C 189/07
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022189EN.01007401.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/74






Euro exchange rates (1)

9 May 2022
(2022/C 189/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0559 




JPY


Japanese yen


138,10 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4385 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85235 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5818 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0462 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0583 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,055 




HUF


Hungarian forint


383,23 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6985 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9467 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,8941 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5048 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3656 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2887 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6584 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4676 




KRW


South Korean won


1 345,48 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1332 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0886 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5335 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 367,67 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6285 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,670 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,497 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4321 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4341 




INR


Indian rupee


81,7415 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-497/21: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Girardi v EUIPO (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Representation before EUIPO — Notification of a deficiency in the power to act as a representative before EUIPO — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, equal treatment, lawyer, registered trade mark, residence, third country, trade-mark law








C_2022284EN.01003601.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/36






Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Girardi v EUIPO
(Case T-497/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Representation before EUIPO - Notification of a deficiency in the power to act as a representative before EUIPO - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 284/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giovanna Paola Girardi (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Predonzani and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the act by which the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) notified her, on 14 June 2021, of a deficiency in an application for a declaration of invalidity which she had filed under reference 000050057 C, and of any other file in which the applicant or right holder represented by her has their permanent residence outside the European Union and, secondly, a declaration that Annex 1 to Section 5 of Part A of the Guidelines for examination of European Union trade marks of EUIPO is unlawful in so far as that annex relates to professional representation by Spanish lawyers before the Office.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is to bear its own costs and pay those of Ms Giovanna Paola Girardi, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-497/21 R.






(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Case T-254/22: Action brought on 10 May 2022 — ‘ANITA’ Grzegorz Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA)
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, catering industry, foodstuff, hotel industry, pastry-making, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022244EN.01004601.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/46






Action brought on 10 May 2022 — ‘ANITA’ Grzegorz Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA)
(Case T-254/22)
(2022/C 244/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant:‘ANITA’ Grzegorz Mordalski (Działoszyn, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anita Food, SA (Lima, Peru)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANITA’ — EU trade mark No 8 291 056

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2022 in Case R 1616/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2022, delivered in Case R 1616/2021-4;










—


annul the decision (preceding the aforementioned decision) of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 26 July 2021, delivered in Case No 000 047 106 C; and










—


remit to EUIPO the application of 1 November 2020 seeking a declaration that the EU trade mark ANITA 008 291 056, registered in the name of Anita Food SA, Carretera Central No 869, Santa Anita, Lima 43, PERU, filed on 11 May 2009 and protected until 11 May 2019, is invalid.





Plea in law







—


Incorrect interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, resulting in the declaration that the invalidation of EU trade marks that have already expired is inadmissible.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/721 of 10 May 2022 correcting the Czech language version of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to accessibility of the Union’s rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, facilities for people with disabilities, high-speed transport, integration of people with disabilities, rail network, technical specification, trans-European network








L_2022134EN.01001401.xml










11.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 134/14








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/721
of 10 May 2022
         
correcting the Czech language version of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to accessibility of the Union’s rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (1), and in particular Article 5(11) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Czech language version of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 (2) contains errors in Chapter 7, Section 7.2, subsection 7.2.1, point 7.2.1.1.2, the first paragraph, point (1), and the second paragraph that alter the meaning of the provisions.












(2)


The Czech language version of Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 51(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/797,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(does not concern the English language)



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 2022.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 44.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 of 18 November 2014 on the technical specifications for interoperability relating to accessibility of the Union’s rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility (OJ L 356, 12.12.2014, p. 110).
Case T-637/21: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (ART CLASS) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2022284EN.01003901.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/39






Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (ART CLASS)
(Case T-637/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 284/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2021 (Case R 1597/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The a.r.t. company b&s and Target Brands.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Target Brands, Inc. shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.