do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-397/22: Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank resolution, discretionary power, financial risk, financing plan, fund (EU), judicial review, official language, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022380EN.01000901.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/9






Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB
(Case T-397/22)
(2022/C 380/11)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Case C-728/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — OF v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Irregularities with regard to EU law — Proceedings — Limitation period — Interruption — Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning an irregularity — Concept — Control report identifying the existence of an irregularity)
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU control, aid to agriculture, fraud against the EU, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2022303EN.01000901.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/9






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — OF v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)
(Case C-728/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Irregularities with regard to EU law - Proceedings - Limitation period - Interruption - Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning an irregularity - Concept - Control report identifying the existence of an irregularity)
(2022/C 303/11)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OF

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Operative part of the order

The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that an on-the-spot check report, which merely reveals the existence of an irregularity and does not mention any intention to investigate or institute legal proceedings in respect of that irregularity, can nevertheless be considered to be an ‘act relating to investigation or legal proceedings’, within the meaning of that provision, such as to interrupt the limitation period of the proceedings, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that regulation, if it sets out with sufficient precision the transactions to which the suspicions of irregularities relate.


(1)  Date lodged: 30.11.2021.
Case C-427/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against BG
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, credit, credit institution, financial supervision








C_2022408EN.01002701.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against BG
(Case C-427/22)
(2022/C 408/36)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Party to the main proceedings

BG

Questions referred







1.


Is the definition of a credit institution in Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that credit is to be granted exclusively from funds received from the public as deposits or other repayable funds, or may a credit institution also grant credit from funds from other sources?










2.


How is the content of the ‘instrument […] in any form […] by which the right to carry out the business is granted’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(42) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 to be interpreted, and does it include both the authorisation scheme and the registration scheme which grant approval for credit operations?






(1)  
            OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1.
Case T-400/22: Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Berlin Hyp v SRB
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank resolution, discretionary power, financial risk, financing plan, fund (EU), judicial review, official language, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022380EN.01001301.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/13






Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Berlin Hyp v SRB
(Case T-400/22)
(2022/C 380/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Berlin Hyp AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the applicant’s 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Case T-704/21: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Compass Tex v EUIPO (Trusted Handwork) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Trusted Handwork — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022318EN.01003701.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/37






Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Compass Tex v EUIPO (Trusted Handwork)
(Case T-704/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Trusted Handwork - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 318/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Compass Tex Ltd (Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 (Case R 0034/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Trusted Handwork as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Compass Tex Ltd shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Notice for the attention of a person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya 2022/C 245/08
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022245EN.01001301.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/13






Notice for the attention of a person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
(2022/C 245/08)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Quren Salih Quren AL QADHAFI person appearing in Annex IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1) and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.
The Council is considering maintaining the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned person with an amended statement of reasons. That person is hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for his designation, before 5 July 2022, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.
Case C-429/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — VK v N1 Interactive Ltd.
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer, contract, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, private international law, residence








C_2022451EN.01000801.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — VK v N1 Interactive Ltd.
(Case C-429/22)
(2022/C 451/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VK

Defendant: N1 Interactive Ltd.

Question referred

Is Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (1) on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (‘the Rome I Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the law of the country in which the consumer has his or her habitual residence is not applicable if the law applicable under Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation, the application of which the applicant seeks and which would be applicable if the applicant lacked consumer status, is more favourable to the applicant?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).
Notice pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations Publication of a vacancy for the function of Director for Production of Publications (OP.B), in the Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (grade AD 14) COM/2022/10414 2022/C 245/11
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, administrator, competition (EU), job vacancy, managing director, recruitment








C_2022245EN.01001701.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/17






NOTICE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 29(2) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS
Publication of a vacancy for the function of Director for Production of Publications (OP.B), in the Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (grade AD 14)
COM/2022/10414
(2022/C 245/11)
The European Commission has published a vacancy notice (reference COM/2022/10414) for the function of Director for Production of Publications (OP.B), in the Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (grade AD 14).
To consult the text of the vacancy notice in 24 languages and to submit your application, please visit this dedicated webpage on the European Commission’s Internet: https://europa.eu/!3nW6yp