do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 of 21 December 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the presentation of the content of the CAP Strategic Plans and on the electronic system for the secure exchange of information (Official Journal of the European Union L 458 of 22 December 2021)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU Member State, aid to agriculture, application of EU law, common agricultural policy, exchange of information, information security, information system, management planning








L_2022156EN.01016301.xml










9.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/163







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 of 21 December 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the presentation of the content of the CAP Strategic Plans and on the electronic system for the secure exchange of information

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 458 of 22 December 2021
)


On page 467, in point 3.1(e)(vi) 2nd indent of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/2289:
for:






‘—


if Member States apply footnote 2 to GAEC 6 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, explanation of the specific conditions of the regions concerned;’,




read:






‘—


if Member States apply footnote 1 to GAEC 6 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, explanation of the specific conditions of the regions concerned;’;




on page 468, in point 3.1(e)(vii) 3rd indent of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/2289:
for:






‘—


where Member State authorise practices related to enhanced crop rotation with leguminous crops and crop diversification in specific regions of their territory as referred to in footnote 3 to GAEC 7 in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, an explanation of the contribution of these practices to preserve the soil potential in line with the objectives of the GAEC on the basis of the diversity of farming methods and agro-climatic conditions in the regions concerned and a justification of the choice made;’,




read:






‘—


where Member State authorise practices related to enhanced crop rotation with leguminous crops and crop diversification in specific regions of their territory as referred to in footnote 2 to GAEC 7 in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, an explanation of the contribution of these practices to preserve the soil potential in line with the objectives of the GAEC on the basis of the diversity of farming methods and agro-climatic conditions in the regions concerned and a justification of the choice made;’.
Case C-383/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by SFD S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-35/21, SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cocoa, dietary product, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, vitamin, wholesale trade








C_2022451EN.01000701.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/7






Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by SFD S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-35/21, SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)
(Case C-383/22 P)
(2022/C 451/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: SFD S.A. (represented by: T. Grucelski, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 17 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that SFD S.A. should bear its own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 8 June 2022 2022/C 225/03
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022225EN.01000501.xml










9.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 June 2022
(2022/C 225/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0739 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,92 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4386 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85575 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4938 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0486 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1395 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,622 




HUF


Hungarian forint


391,25 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5698 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9450 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,4530 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4917 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3467 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4275 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6644 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4769 




KRW


South Korean won


1 349,34 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4626 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1785 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5215 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 577,86 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7187 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,799 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,076 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2447 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0458 




INR


Indian rupee


83,4140 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-347/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO (Musto et Bureau (melting crucible)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, scientific apparatus








C_2022294EN.01003501.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/35






Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO (Musto et Bureau (melting crucible)
(Case T-347/22)
(2022/C 294/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH (Gmunden, Austria) (represented by: M. Traxler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Musto et Bureau Srl (Osteria Grande, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 7 737 143-0001 (melting crucible)

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 1697/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision together with the declaration of invalidity of Community design No 7 737 143-0001;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements;










—


Infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10623 – REPSOL / TELEFONICA / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 231/01
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, chemical product, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy transport, hydrocarbon, merger control, petroleum product, photovoltaic cell, special chemicals, telecommunications








C_2022231EN.01000101.xml










15.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10623 – REPSOL / TELEFONICA / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 231/01)
On 9 June 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 32022M10623. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (Official Journal of the European Union L 198 of 22 June 2020)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU environmental policy, climate change policy, economic activity, economic instrument for the environment, environmental protection, financial market, green economy, investment, sustainable development








L_2022156EN.01015901.xml










9.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/159







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 198 of 22 June 2020
)


On page 22, recital 43, first sentence:
for:


                  ‘When establishing and updating the technical screening criteria the Commission should take into account relevant Union law, including Regulations (EC) No 1221/2009 (55) and (EC) 66/2010 (56) of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU (57) and the communication of the Commission of 16 July 2018 on “Public procurement for a better environment”.’,

read:


                  ‘When establishing and updating the technical screening criteria the Commission should take into account relevant Union law, including Regulations (EC) No 1221/2009 (55) and (EC) No 66/2010 (56) of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU (57) and the communication of the Commission of 16 July 2008 on “Public procurement for a better environment”.’.
Case C-603/21 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 — Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Transport — Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 — Access to the international road haulage market — Cabotage — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Condition that the measure must be of individual concern to the applicant — Professional association — Effective judicial protection — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, carrier, drafting of EU law, freedom to provide services, impact study, liberalisation of the market, principle of proportionality, right to justice, road cabotage, transport regulations








C_2022368EN.01001001.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/10






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 — Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
(Case C-603/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Transport - Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 - Access to the international road haulage market - Cabotage - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Condition that the measure must be of individual concern to the applicant - Professional association - Effective judicial protection - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
(2022/C 368/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Emmerechts, A. Norberg and L. Vétillard, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.










2.


Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (UPTR) shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Case C-381/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Japan Airlines Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-340/17, Japan Airlines v Commission
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, control of restrictive practices, international transport, powers of the institutions (EU), price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2022303EN.01002601.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/26






Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Japan Airlines Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-340/17, Japan Airlines v Commission
(Case C-381/22 P)
(2022/C 303/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Japan Airlines Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, K. Van Hove, advocaat, and R Burton, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it holds that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA apply to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes;










—


annul the 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) (the Decision) in its entirety or, in the alternative, annul the Decision insofar as it finds that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement apply to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes and reduce the fine imposed on the appellant to EUR 26 775 000 or to such other amount as the Court sees fit;










—


order the Commission to bear all of the costs of these proceedings, including those before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas.
The General Court erred in law by refusing to address the appellant’s plea that the Decision infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement by prohibiting conduct with respect to inbound airfreight services that do not restrict competition within the EEA and wrongly relying instead on the public international law concept of qualified effects to establish the Commission’s jurisdiction under EU law; and
In the alternative, the General Court erred in law in its application of the qualified effects test in finding that the Commission had jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in relation to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes.
Case C-55/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 11 — Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption — Directive 2011/64/EU — point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 — Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision — Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision — None)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, tax rebate, tobacco








C_2022294EN.01001001.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD
(Case C-55/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 11 - Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption - Directive 2011/64/EU - point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 - Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision - Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision - None)
(2022/C 294/12)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant:‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not require Member States to provide for the reimbursement of excise duty in respect of excise goods, including manufactured tobacco, destroyed under customs supervision, which have already been released for consumption.


(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Case C-384/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health risk, infringement procedure (EU), ionising radiation, national implementing measure, occupational safety, radiation protection, safety standard








C_2022303EN.01002801.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/28






Action brought on 9 June 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-384/22)
(2022/C 303/35)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by not adopting, by 6 February 2018, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.










—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 106 of Directive 2013/59/Euratom, Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 6 February 2018, and to communicate those provisions to the Commission.
Given that the Kingdom of Spain has not yet incorporated all the provisions of Directive 2013/59/Euratom into Spanish legislation or, in any event, has not communicated those provisions to the Commission, as required by Article 106 thereof, the Commission decided, on 9 February 2022, to bring the present action before the Court of Justice for a declaration, under the second paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of Directive 2013/59/Euratom.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.
Corrigendum to 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 (Official Journal of the European Union L 80 of 9 March 2022)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, territorial dispute, territorial law








L_2022156EN.01016001.xml










9.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/160







Corrigendum to 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

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 80 of 9 March 2022
)


On page 51, in the Annex, in the table headed ‘Persons’, in entry 806 relating to Igor Nikolayevich MOROZOV, in the column headed ‘Identifying information’:
for:


                  ‘DOB: 13.10.1956
                  ’,

read:


                  ‘DOB: 10.12.1956
                  ’;

on page 59, in the Annex, in the table headed ‘Persons’, in entry 872 relating to Alexandra Gennadyevna ZHUKOVA, in the column headed ‘Name’:
for:


                  ‘Alexandra Gennadyevna ZHUKOVA’,

read:


                  ‘Anastasia Gennadyevna ZHUKOVA’.