do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information concerning the entry into force of the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and Ukraine
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Ukraine, cooperation agreement (EU), renewal of an agreement, research and development, scientific cooperation, technical cooperation








L_2022172EN.01000401.xml










29.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 172/4







Information concerning the entry into force of the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and Ukraine

The renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and Ukraine, signed on 4 July 2002
          (1) and renewed in 2003 (2), 2011 (3), 2015 (4) and 2020 (5) has, in accordance with Article 12(a) thereof, entered into force on 17 June 2020. The renewal of the Agreement for a further period of 5 years, in accordance with Article 12(b) thereof, is effective as from 8 November 2019.


(1)  
            OJ L 36, 12.2.2003, p. 31.

(2)  
            OJ L 267, 17.10.2003, p. 24.

(3)  
            OJ L 79, 25.3.2011, p. 3.

(4)  
            OJ L 60, 4.3.2015, p. 37.

(5)  
            OJ L 193, 17.6.2020, p. 1.
Case T-388/22: Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, eligibility criteria, executive agency, reimbursement of aid, research, rights of the defence, wage cost








C_2022359EN.01007601.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/76






Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
(Case T-388/22)
(2022/C 359/95)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (APT) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: B. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare unfounded the defendant’s claim, contained in debit note No 3242201592/28.1.2022, that the applicant is to reimburse part of the subsidy received for the project MINATRAN, in the amount of EUR 184 224,21, and declare that that amount corresponds to eligible costs;










—


order ERCEA to repay to APT the amount of EUR 184 224,21, with default interest, in so far as that amount has been unduly paid; and










—


order ERCEA to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (APT) challenges the debit note issued by the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) in relation to the implementation of the project MINATRAN. By that debit note, ERCEA requested that APT reimburse the amount of EUR 184 224,21 which corresponds to part of the subsidy received for the project MINATRAN and a lump sum payment to ERCEA.
In that context, APT asks the General Court of the European Union, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, to declare that the amount referred to above and contested by ERCEA corresponds to eligible costs, and that ERCEA must repay it to APT as an undue payment.
APT claims that:






1.


In the first place, ERCEA, in order to declare the costs declared by the international researchers to be ineligible, based its decision on entirely unfounded and unsubstantiated assertions. As a result, ERCEA’s request in the amount of EUR 184 224,21 relating to staff and travel expenses, indirect expenses and the imposition of a flat-rate allowance is unfounded. In addition, the eligibility of the costs has also been shown by way of the evidence submitted by APT.










2.


In the second place, ERCEA, requesting the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 184 224,21 on the basis of incomplete and unreliable documents and information, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Charter by, first, infringing APT’s right to be heard and, second, preventing APT from obtaining effective legal protection.










3.


In the third place, ERCEA is in breach of the principle of performance of contracts in good faith.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10768 – KKR / ALBIOMA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 262/02
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bioenergy, biomass, economic concentration, energy production, geothermal energy, investment company, merger control, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2022262EN.01000201.xml










7.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10768 – KKR / ALBIOMA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 262/02)
On 29 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 32022M10768. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-379/22: Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Diesel v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Joggjeans)
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022311EN.01001801.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/18






Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Diesel v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Joggjeans)
(Case T-379/22)
(2022/C 311/21)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

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: European Union word mark Joggjeans — European Union trade mark No 18 187 200

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1074/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold it its entirety the application filed by Diesel SpA and annul the contested decision;










—


order the intervener to pay the costs, including all the costs of the earlier stages of these proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-501/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Corneli v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Decision of the BCE to place Banca Carige under temporary administration — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law — General presumption of confidentiality — Concept of confidential information — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, bank, confidentiality, disclosure of information








C_2022311EN.01000801.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/8






Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Corneli v ECB
(Case T-501/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Decision of the BCE to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - General presumption of confidentiality - Concept of confidential information - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 311/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner, A. Riso and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of European Central Bank (ECB) Decision LS/LDG/19/182 of 29 May 2019 refusing to grant access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 29 May 2019 refusing to grant access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration;










2.


Orders the ECB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case T-640/21: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — bet-at-home.com Entertainment v EUIPO (bet-at-home) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark bet-at-home — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leisure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022318EN.01003502.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/35






Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — bet-at-home.com Entertainment v EUIPO (bet-at-home)
(Case T-640/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark bet-at-home - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 318/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: bet-at-home.com Entertainment GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: R. Paulitsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the reversal of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 August 2021 (Case R 2143/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders bet-at-home.com Entertainment GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case T-401/22: Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DVB Bank v SRB
Date: 2022-06-29
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.01001302.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/13






Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DVB Bank v SRB
(Case T-401/22)
(2022/C 380/15)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, 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.
Corrigendum to Commission Notice - Technical guidance on the climate proofing of infrastructure in the period 2021-2027 (Official Journal of the European Union C 373 of 16 September 2021) 2022/C 246/09
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, adaptation to climate change, climate change, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, structural policy, sustainable development, technical regulations








C_2022246EN.01002401.xml










29.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/24






Corrigendum to Commission Notice - Technical guidance on the climate proofing of infrastructure in the period 2021-2027

(

Official Journal of the European Union C 373 of 16 September 2021
)

(2022/C 246/09)
On page 1, in the disclaimer, fourth paragraph,
for:

‘The guidance is also deemed a relevant reference for the climate proofing of infrastructure under Article 2(37) and Article 67(3) j) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)) as well as under the Recovery and Resilience Facility.’,

read:

‘The guidance is also deemed a relevant reference for the climate proofing of infrastructure under Article 2(37) and Article 67(3) j) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)) as well as under the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and for climate proofing under Article 5(5) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council (European Climate Law) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1).’.

On page 13, in footnote 10,
for:

‘Certain infrastructure is designated “critical infrastructure” in accordance with Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 7) includes the following definition. This guidance on climate proofing can be applied to infrastructure irrespective of whether it is designated “critical infrastructure” or not.’,

read:

‘Certain infrastructure is designated “critical infrastructure” in accordance with Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 7). This guidance on climate proofing can be applied to infrastructure irrespective of whether it is designated “critical infrastructure” or not.’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10663 – ORANGE / VOO / BRUTÉLÉ) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 246/05
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications








C_2022246EN.01000501.xml










29.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10663 – ORANGE / VOO / BRUTÉLÉ)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 246/05)

1.   
On 22 June 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Orange Belgium S.A. (‘OBE’, Belgium), controlled by Orange S.A. (‘Orange’, France),










—


VOO S.A. (‘VOO’, Belgium), controlled by Nethys SA (‘Nethys’, Belgium), in turn controlled by Enodia SC (‘Enodia’, Belgium)










—


The telecommunication, media and technology activities of Societe Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Television (‘Brutélé’, Belgium).




Orange, through OBE, will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of VOO and Brutélé.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


for Orange: a global telecommunications operator, activein Belgium through OBE providing retail mobile telecommunications services based on its own mobile network and retail fixed telecommunications services based on third party fixed networks,










—


for VOO: a cable operator mainly active in the Walloon Region of Belgium providing retail fixed telecommunications services based on its own network and retail mobile telecommunications services based on third party mobile networks,










—


for Brutélé: a cable operator mainly active in the Region of Brussels Capital and certain municipalities of the Walloon Region of Belgium providing retail fixed telecommunications services based on its own network.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10663 – ORANGE / VOO / BRUTÉLÉ
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal 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-402/22: Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Dz Hyp v SRB
Date: 2022-06-29
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.01001401.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/14






Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Dz Hyp v SRB
(Case T-402/22)
(2022/C 380/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, 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-163/20: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — AZ v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Hollabrunn Korneuburg Tulln
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, free movement of workers, residence, social-security harmonisation








C_2022368EN.01001901.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/19






Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — AZ v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Hollabrunn Korneuburg Tulln
(Case C-163/20) (1)

(2022/C 368/28)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-337/20: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent) (EU trade mark — Board of Appeal decision confirming the revocation of an earlier decision — Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Request for conversion into a national trade mark application — Ground precluding conversion — Non-use of the EU trade mark — Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, data transmission, database, marketing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022311EN.01000901.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/9






Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)
(Case T-337/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Board of Appeal decision confirming the revocation of an earlier decision - Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Request for conversion into a national trade mark application - Ground precluding conversion - Non-use of the EU trade mark - Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
(2022/C 311/12)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 March 2020 (Case R 187/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hochmann Marketing GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Special report 16/2022 ‘Data in the Common Agricultural Policy – Unrealised potential of big data for policy evaluations’ 2022/C 246/04
Date: 2022-06-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: agricultural holding, agricultural performance, agricultural situation, big data, common agricultural policy, data collection, disclosure of information, information analysis, information technology applications, innovation








C_2022246EN.01000401.xml










29.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/4






Special report 16/2022
‘Data in the Common Agricultural Policy – Unrealised potential of big data for policy evaluations’
(2022/C 246/04)
The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 16/2022: ‘Data in the Common Agricultural Policy – Unrealised potential of big data for policy evaluations’.
The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61415