do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-272/22: Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyanskaya v Council
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy








C_2022257EN.01004301.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/43






Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyanskaya v Council
(Case T-272/22)
(2022/C 257/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.





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 an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts.






—


The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed.










—


The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations.










—


The evidence provided is insufficient to establish a qualified link between the applicant and the applicant’s husband, with the element of ‘association’ under the Contested Acts requiring a nexus going beyond a mere family relationship.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications, as well as property.






—


In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and based its decision upon law that does not conform to the requirement of foreseeability under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










—


The arbitrary measure imposed against the applicant amounts to unequal, discriminatory treatment of the applicant.










(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.
Case T-279/22: Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval








C_2022284EN.01004601.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/46






Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-279/22)
(2022/C 284/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2022 C(2022) 3252 (final) granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Mylan — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and










—


order the Commission 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 failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).
Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties — Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, debt, enforcement of ruling, injunction, judicial review, unfair terms of contract








C_2022266EN.01000301.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19)
(Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties - Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)
(2022/C 266/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA, Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Carugate e Inzago sc, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, Banca Popolare di Sondrio s.c.p.a, Cerved Credit Management (C-831/19)

Defendants: YB (C-693/19), YX, ZW (C-831/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where an order for payment issued by a court on application by a creditor has not been the subject of an objection lodged by the debtor, the court hearing the enforcement proceedings may not, on the ground that the force of res judicata of that order applies by implication to the validity of those terms, thus excluding any examination of their validity, subsequently review the potential unfairness of the contractual terms on which that order is based. The fact that, at the time when the order became final, the debtor was unaware that he or she could be classified as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that directive, is irrelevant in that regard.


(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.
CORDIS results pack on sustainable processing of mineral resources : safety, sustainability and security for Europe’s mineral processing industry.
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: CORDIS, Publications Office of the European Union
Subjects: innovation, management of resources, mineral resources, mining extraction, processing industry, raw material, research and development, sustainable development

CORDIS
Results Pack on
sustainable processing 
of mineral resources

Safety, sustainability
and security for Europe’s
mineral processing industry

Research and 
Innovation

CORDIS Results Pack on
sustainable processing of mineral resources 
Safety, sustainability and security 
for Europe’s mineral processing industry

NEMO
RemovAL

SecREEts CHROMIC
FineFuture

PLATIRUS

SCALE

k
c
o
t
s
r
e
t
t
u
h
S

,

e
c
r
a
n
e
s
©
e
g
a
m

i

|

N
-
N
E
-
3
3
3
-
2
2
-
1
0
-
Z
Z

:

F
D
P

|

C
-
N
E
-
3
3
3
-
2
2
-
1
0
-
Z
Z

:
t
n
i
r
P

of the European Union

#h2020
#rawmaterials
#processing
#criticalrawmaterials
@EU_Growth
@EU_HaDEA

europa.eu/!ckHB7j
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 17 May 2022 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal (ECB/2022/24) 2022/C 210/01
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Portugal, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area








C_2022210EN.01000101.xml










25.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/1






RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 17 May 2022
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal
(ECB/2022/24)
(2022/C 210/01)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of the Banco de Portugal’s current external auditors, Deloitte & Associados — Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas S.A., ended following the audit for the financial year 2021. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2022.










(3)


Banco de Portugal has selected PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Associados - Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas Lda as its external auditors for the financial years 2022 to 2026,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Associados - Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas Lda should be appointed as the external auditors of Banco de Portugal for the financial years 2022 to 2026.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 17 May 2022.


The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE
Case T-271/22: Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Melnichenko v Council
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy








C_2022257EN.01004201.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/42






Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Melnichenko v Council
(Case T-271/22)
(2022/C 257/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Andrey Melnichenko (St. Moritz, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.





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 an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications as well as property.






—


In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts.






—


The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed.










—


The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations.










—


The evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by way of the Contested Acts.










(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.
State aid – Germany State aid SA.53625 (2021/C) – Lignite phase-out Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 199/08
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, decommissioning of power stations, energy production, infringement procedure (EU), lignite, power plant








C_2022199EN.01000901.xml










17.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/9






STATE AID – GERMANY
State aid SA.53625 (2021/C) – Lignite phase-out
Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 199/08)
On 27 January 2022, the Commission adopted the EU Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy 2022 (‘CEEAG’) (1). According to point 466 of those guidelines, the Commission will apply CEEAG to assess the compatibility of all notifiable aid for climate, environmental protection and energy awarded or intended to be awarded from 27 January 2022.
On 2 March 2021, the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in case SA.53625 (2). In light of the above, the Commission invites comments, among other things, on the applicability and application of CEEAG and, where relevant, on the compatibility grounds set out in those guidelines, including in Section 3 and Section 4.12 thereof, in relation to the measure in respect of which the Commission has initiated the above-mentioned pending formal investigation. The Member State concerned and interested parties may submit their comments on that measure within 20 working days from the date of publication of this notice to:





European Commission




Directorate General for Competition




State aid Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Fax +32 22961242
Email: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu
Interested parties’ comments will be communicated to the Member State concerned in the above-mentioned pending formal investigation. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing when submitting the comments, stating the reasons for the request.


(1)  OJ C 80, 18.2.2022, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 177, 7.5.2021, p. 50.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 16 May 2022 2022/C 199/07
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022199EN.01000801.xml










17.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 May 2022
(2022/C 199/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0422 




JPY


Japanese yen


135,01 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4418 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85045 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4978 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0479 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2188 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,710 




HUF


Hungarian forint


385,85 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6675 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9469 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,3121 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5057 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3473 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1812 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6601 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4531 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,90 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9195 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0786 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5225 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 294,29 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5836 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,705 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,274 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2819 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9324 




INR


Indian rupee


81,0810 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-869/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Mortgage agreement — Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement — National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure — Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void — Restitution — Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, consumer protection, interest, judicial review, mortgage, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2022266EN.01000402.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U.
(Case C-869/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Mortgage agreement - Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement - National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure - Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void - Restitution - Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)
(2022/C 266/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: L

Defendant: Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the application of principles of national judicial procedure, under which a national court, hearing an appeal against a judgment temporally limiting the repayment of sums wrongly paid by the consumer under a term declared to be unfair, cannot raise of its own motion a ground relating to the infringement of that provision and order the repayment of those sums in full, where the failure of the consumer concerned to challenge that temporal limitation cannot be attributed to his or her complete inaction.


(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case T-270/22: Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyansky v Council
Date: 2022-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy








C_2022257EN.01004102.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/41






Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyansky v Council
(Case T-270/22)
(2022/C 257/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyansky (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.





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 an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications as well as property.






—


In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts.






—


The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed.










—


The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations.










—


The evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by way of the Contested Acts.










(1)  OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2022 ,L 80, p. 1.