do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-416/22: Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, precautionary principle, starch








C_2022340EN.01004901.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/49






Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission
(Case T-416/22)
(2022/C 340/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Fresenius Kabi Austria GmbH (Graz, Austria) and 14 other applicants (represented by: W. Rehmann and A. Knierim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare Commission Decision of 24 May 2022 C(2022) 3591 null and void insofar as it orders the Member States of the European Union to suspend the national marketing authorisations for the medicinal products as referred to in Annex I thereof;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


in the alternative, by way of precautionary motion, declare Commission Decision of 24 May 2022 C(2022) 3591 null and void insofar as it orders Member States of the European Union to suspend the national Marketing Authorisations for the medicinal products of the claimants for the medicinal products as referred to in Annex I thereof.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the requirements of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) justifying a suspension of the marketing authorisation for hydroxyethyl starch-containing medicinal products are not met. Consequently, the Commission cannot render a decision requiring that Member States will by way of implementing the decision suspend the respective marketing authorisations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Commission is infringing the precautionary principle.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the suspension of the marketing authorisation of hydroxyethyl starch-containing medicinal products is neither adequate nor proportionate to address the safety concerns resulting from the Drug Utilisation Study. Off-label use should not lead to suspension of in-label use that has well documented beneficial effects, particularly in the absence of any new adverse safety signals.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is contradictory in itself and, therefore, lacks sufficient reasoning.






(1)  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).
Case T-386/22: Action brought on 1 July 2022 — QF v Council
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, proof








C_2022318EN.01004301.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/43






Action brought on 1 July 2022 — QF v Council
(Case T-386/22)
(2022/C 318/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QF (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as the applicant is concerned;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 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, in so far as the applicant is concerned;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits, first, that none of the Council’s items of evidence meets the requirements of the European case-law in terms of the standard and quality of the evidence and, second, that none of the assertions of the Council’s statement of reasons is established. Lastly, the applicant puts forward, in support of her plea, elements of a financial nature, which make it possible to establish that the Council’s reasoning is incorrect.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 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 (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).
Communication from the Commission establishing formal recognition that a certain number of acts of Union law in the area of animal health have become obsolete 2022/C 252/01
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: Community acquis, decision (EU), repeal, veterinary legislation








C_2022252EN.01000101.xml










1.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/1






COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
establishing formal recognition that a certain number of acts of Union law in the area of animal health have become obsolete
(2022/C 252/01)

List of acts to be removed from the active acquis



(Content of code in bovine earmarks)

Commission Decision 93/317/EEC
(OJ L 122, 18.05.1993, p. 45).

(Vaccines against bovine brucellosis)

Commission Decision 2002/598/EC
(OJ L 194, 23.7.2002 p. 45).

(Protective measures in relation to blue tongue)

Commission Decision 2003/845/EC
(OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 61).

(Tests with regard to bovine brucellosis)

Commission Decision 2004/226/EC
(OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 36).

(Quarantine of aquaculture animals)

Commission Decision 2008/946/EC
(OJ L 337, 16.12.2008, p. 94).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 June 2022 2022/C 252/04
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022252EN.01000501.xml










1.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 June 2022
(2022/C 252/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0387 




JPY


Japanese yen


141,54 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4392 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85820 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7300 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9960 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3485 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,739 




HUF


Hungarian forint


397,04 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6904 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9464 




TRY


Turkish lira


17,3220 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5099 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3425 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1493 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6705 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4483 




KRW


South Korean won


1 351,60 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0143 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9624 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5307 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 552,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5781 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,150 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,754 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4229 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9641 




INR


Indian rupee


82,1130 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-435/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München v HF
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: border control, carrying out of sentence, extradition, foreign national, offence, right to justice, third country








C_2022326EN.01001301.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München v HF
(Case C-435/22)
(2022/C 326/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Defendant: HF

Question referred

Must Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, read in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) be interpreted as meaning that that those provisions preclude the extradition of a third-country national who is not an EU citizen in terms of Article 20 of the TFEU by the authorities of a contracting state to that Convention and an EU Member State to a third country if final judgment has been passed against the person concerned by another Member State of the European Union for the same offences to which the extradition request relates and that judgment has been enforced and where the decision to refuse to extradite that person to the third country would be possible only at the cost of breaching a bilateral extradition treaty that exists with that third country?


(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10762 – H&F / IRI )
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, market research, merger control








C_202301094EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1094


20.11.2023






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10762 – H&F / IRI )
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1094)

On 1 July 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32022M10762. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1094/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-389/22 RENV: Action brought on 1 July 2022 – Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO – Nunziante and Ughi (UGHI E NUNZIANTE)
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, legal aid, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202506629EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6629


22.12.2025






Action brought on 1 July 2022
               
                (1) – Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO – Nunziante and Ughi (UGHI E NUNZIANTE)


(Case T-389/22 RENV)

(C/2025/6629)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Cascone, A. Clemente, A. Marega and F. De Filippis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Hanf, R. Raponi and D. Stoyanova-Valchanova, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings, interventer in the appeal: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, P. Stancanelli and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giovanni Battista Nunziante (Rome), Andrea Mario Piero Ughi (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark UGHI E NUNZIANTE – EU trade mark No 8 595 621
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2022 in Case R 407/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul and alter the contested decision, including the part on the order for costs of the appeal proceedings, and consequently, declare the registration of the trade mark at issue invalid for all of the services claimed therein, including the legal services under Class 45;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in the present action.





Pleas in law







—


Misapplication of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Erroneous finding concerning the discharge of the burden of proof by Mr Nunziante with regard to consent to the use of the trade mark;










—


Distortion and incorrect assessment of the documentation relating to the proof of use of the trade mark produced by Mr Nunziante.






(1)  The action in Case T-389/22 was brought on 1oJuly 2022. By order of 10 October 2022, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO – Nunziante and Ughi (UGHI E NUNZIANTE) (T-389/22, not published), the General Court dismissed that action before the application was notified to the other parties. By judgment of 4 September 2025, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO (C-776/22 P, EU:C:2025:644), the Court of Justice set aside the order of the General Court and referred the case back to that court.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6629/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
DRAFT Union annual budget for the financial year 2023 - General Introduction - General statement of expenditure - General statement of revenue - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.7.2022  COM(2022) 400 final 2022/0212 (BUD)    DRAFT Union annual  budget for the financial year 2023  - General Introduction            - General statement of expenditure            - General statement of revenue            - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section  
 
 
DOCUMENTS 
DRAFT  
Union annual budget 
for the financial year 2023 

—   General introduction 

—   General statement of expenditure 

—   General statement of revenue 

—   General statement of revenue and expenditure by section:  

—   Section 1:   European Parliament 

—    Section 2:   European Council and Council 

—    Section 3:   European Commission 

—    Section 4:   Court of Justice of the European Union 

—    Section 5:   Court of Auditors 

—    Section 6:   European Economic and Social Committee 

—    Section 7:   European Committee of the Regions 

—    Section 8:   European Ombudsman 

—    Section 9:   European Data Protection Supervisor 

—    Section 10: European External Action Service  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm
Case T-406/22: Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Volkskreditbank v SRB
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, discretionary power, financing method, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022368EN.01002501.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/25






Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Volkskreditbank v SRB
(Case T-406/22)
(2022/C 368/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkskreditbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, 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 any event in so far as it concerns the applicant; and










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law, which are identical to the pleas in law put forward in Case T-395/22, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.
Case T-384/22: Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Productos Ibéricos Calderón y Ramos v EUIPO — Hijos de Rivera (ESTRELLA DE CASTILLA)
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, meat product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022340EN.01004801.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/48






Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Productos Ibéricos Calderón y Ramos v EUIPO — Hijos de Rivera (ESTRELLA DE CASTILLA)
(Case T-384/22)
(2022/C 340/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Productos Ibéricos Calderón y Ramos, SL (Salamanca, Spain) (represented by: J. C. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hijos de Rivera, SA (La Coruña, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative trade mark ESTRELLA DE CASTILLA — Application No 17 992 941

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1576/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, in the event that the latter appears before the Court and contests the application, to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.