do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-29/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Beveland v EUIPO — Super B (BUCANERO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark BUCANERO — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) and Article 58(1) point (a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Proof of genuine use)
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022303EN.01004001.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/40






Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Beveland v EUIPO — Super B (BUCANERO)
(Case T-29/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BUCANERO - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) and Article 58(1) point (a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Proof of genuine use)
(2022/C 303/49)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Beveland, SA (Sant Joan les Fonts, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Super B, SL (Talavera de la Reina, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 (Case R 1046/2020-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Beveland and Super B.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Beveland, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Case C-534/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Second sentence of Article 38(3) — Data protection officer — Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks — Legal basis — Article 16 TFEU — Requirement of functional independence — National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, dismissal, labour relations, personal data








C_2022303EN.01000301.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/3






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH
(Case C-534/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Second sentence of Article 38(3) - Data protection officer - Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks - Legal basis - Article 16 TFEU - Requirement of functional independence - National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)
(2022/C 303/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Leistritz AG

Defendant: LH

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a controller or a processor may terminate the employment contract of a data protection officer, who is a member of his or her staff, only with just cause, even if the contractual termination is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations 2022/C 240/06
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Andalusia, Melilla, Spain, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2022240EN.01001901.xml










22.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/19






Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(2022/C 240/06)






Member State


Spain




Concerned route


Melilla-Almería / Granada / Sevilla




Period of validity of the contract


From January 1st 2023 to December 31th 2023.




Deadline for submission of tenders


Not before 2 months following the date of publication of this notice




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana




Dirección General de Aviación Civil




Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo




Paseo de la Castellana 67




28071 Madrid




ESPAÑA




Email: osp.dgac@mitma.es
Case C-419/22 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2022 by Group Nivelles against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-327/20, Group Nivelles v EUIPO
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2023045EN.01000402.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/4






Appeal brought on 22 June 2022 by Group Nivelles against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-327/20, Group Nivelles v EUIPO

(Case C-419/22 P)
(2023/C 45/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: Group Nivelles NV (represented by: J.A.M. Jonkhout, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Easy Sanitary Solutions BV
By order of 16 December 2022, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Group Nivelles NV to bear its own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10714 – VGRD / ASSETS OF AUTO-HOLDING DRESDEN) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 350/01
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, subsidiary








C_2022350EN.01000101.xml










13.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10714 – VGRD / ASSETS OF AUTO-HOLDING DRESDEN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 350/01)
On 22 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 32022M10714. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-739/20: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark WATERFORD — Action for annulment — Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Admissibility — Trade mark liable to mislead the public — Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, glass industry, hairdressing and beauty care, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, smoking, textile industry, tinplate and cutlery industry, trade-mark law








C_2022303EN.01003902.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/39






Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)
(Case T-739/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark WATERFORD - Action for annulment - Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Admissibility - Trade mark liable to mislead the public - Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2022/C 303/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unite the Union (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Mortelé and B. Lieben, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 September 2020 (Case R 2683/2019-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Unite the Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case T-584/19: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — thyssenkrupp v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Market for the production and distribution of flat carbon steel — Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Relevant market — Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition — Commitments — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: economic concentration, flat product, market supervision, merger control, steel








C_2022303EN.01003801.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/38






Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — thyssenkrupp v Commission
(Case T-584/19) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Market for the production and distribution of flat carbon steel - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition - Commitments - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 303/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: thyssenkrupp AG (Duisburg and Essen, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann, J. Ziebarth and M. Dästner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, T. Franchoo, I. Zaloguin and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4228 final of 11 June 2019 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.8713 — Tata Steel/thyssenkrupp/JV).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders thyssenkrupp AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 21 June 2022 2022/C 240/04
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022240EN.01001301.xml










22.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/13






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 June 2022
(2022/C 240/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0550 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,75 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86010 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6460 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0214 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3283 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,690 




HUF


Hungarian forint


396,48 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6435 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9462 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,3049 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5177 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3660 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2817 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6675 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4612 




KRW


South Korean won


1 365,09 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7881 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0680 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5205 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 639,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6399 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,304 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,294 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4420 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2485 




INR


Indian rupee


82,4230 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-628/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Revolution Vodka — Earlier EU word mark TEQUILA REVOLUCIÓN — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Absence of genuine use — Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2022303EN.01004401.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/44






Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka)
(Case T-628/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Revolution Vodka - Earlier EU word mark TEQUILA REVOLUCIÓN - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Absence of genuine use - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 303/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tequila Revolución S.A.P.I. De C.V. (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Horizons Group (London) Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 July 2021 (Case R 2266/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tequila Revolución S.A.P.I. De C.V. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.10438 – MOL / OMV SLOVENIJA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 245/02
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, retail trade








C_2022245EN.01000201.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.10438 – MOL / OMV SLOVENIJA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 245/02)
On 22 June 2022, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.10438 – MOL / OMV SLOVENIJA, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-797/19: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Serious breach of the national provisions transposing Directive 2005/60/EC — Proportionality — Infringement of the national legislation on the governance of credit institutions — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: banking supervision, credit institution, financial supervision, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade licence








C_2022311EN.01000802.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/8






Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB
(Case T-797/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Serious breach of the national provisions transposing Directive 2005/60/EC - Proportionality - Infringement of the national legislation on the governance of credit institutions - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2022/C 311/11)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB AG, formerly Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria), Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ketzer and O. Behrends, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, E. Yoo and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-AT 8 WHD-2019 0009 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 14 November 2019, by which the ECB withdrew AAB Bank’s authorisation to access the activities of a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Anglo Austrian AAB AG and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those of the application for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.
Case T-479/21: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Haswani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Res judicata — Error of assessment — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair trial)
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022303EN.01004202.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/42






Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Haswani v Council
(Case T-479/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Res judicata - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair trial)
(2022/C 303/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18), in so far as those acts maintain his name on the lists annexed thereto and, second, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the non-material damage he allegedly suffered following the adoption of the abovementioned acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr George Haswani to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.