do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the European Central Bank of 4 July 2022 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Croatia and on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Croatia (CON/2022/24) 2022/C 271/03
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: Croatia, Economic and Monetary Union, Euro Group (euro area), conversion rate, economic convergence, euro, legal basis, monetary union, national currency, participating country (euro area)








C_2022271EN.01000301.xml










14.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/3






OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 4 July 2022
on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Croatia and on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Croatia
(CON/2022/24)
(2022/C 271/03)

Introduction and legal basis

On 3 June 2022 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Croatia (1). On 1 July 2022 the ECB received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Croatia (2).
The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 140(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

Observations









1.


The proposed regulations will enable the introduction of the euro as the currency of Croatia following the abrogation of Croatia’s derogation in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 140(2) of the Treaty.












2.


The ECB welcomes the proposed regulations.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 4 July 2022.


The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE




(1)  COM(2022) 281 final.

(2)  COM(2022) 319 final.
Case C-440/22 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-718/20, Wizz Air v Commission
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, low cost airline








C_2022318EN.01003201.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/32






Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-718/20, Wizz Air v Commission
(Case C-440/22 P)
(2022/C 318/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal; and










—


annul the Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (1); and order the Commission to pay the costs; or










—


refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.
First, the General Court erred in law by finding that the condition of existence of an important service which is hard to replicate within the meaning of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (2) (the ‘Guidelines’) is satisfied.
Second, the General Court misapplied the Guidelines regarding the evidence of the difficulty for a competitor to step in.
Third, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the free capacity on the market and the capacity of low fares airlines to operate on domestic routes.
Fourth, the General Court made an error in law by finding that capital increases cannot relate to a restructuring plan.
Fifth, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the duration of TAROM’s restructuring period.
Sixth, the General Court erred in law by concluding that there was no need for the Commission to verify if existing aid has become new aid.
Seventh, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure.


(1)  OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.
Case T-394/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Banque postale v SRB
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, equal treatment, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), principle of proportionality








C_2022311EN.01002202.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/22






Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Banque postale v SRB
(Case T-394/22)
(2022/C 311/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Case T-415/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022326EN.01002301.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/23






Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
(Case T-415/22)
(2022/C 326/31)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1284/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks;










—


The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case;










—


The Board of Appeal also erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when considering the role of distinctiveness as regards certification marks.
Case T-392/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank resolution, credit institution, equal treatment, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), principle of proportionality








C_2022311EN.01002101.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/21






Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB
(Case T-392/22)
(2022/C 311/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Conféderation nationale du Crédit Mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.



(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Case T-393/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — BPCE and Others v SRB
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank resolution, credit institution, equal treatment, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), principle of proportionality








C_2022311EN.01002201.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/22






Action brought on 4 July 2022 — BPCE and Others v SRB
(Case T-393/22)
(2022/C 311/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and the 45 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Case C-445/22P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, central bank, common market, company in difficulties, control of State aid, credit guarantee, guarantee, private investment, shareholder








C_2022340EN.01002301.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/23






Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission
(Case C-445/22P)
(2022/C 340/30)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Drillerakis and E. Rantos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (ECLI:EU:T:2022:268);










—


refer the matter back to the General Court for reconsideration; and










—


reserve the costs of the present proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following ground of appeal:

Ground of appeal: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the General Court found that measure No 2 (2008 State guarantee) conferred an advantage on the appellant

According to the appellant, the General Court’s assessment that measure No 2 (2008 State guarantee) conferred an advantage on the appellant, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, is vitiated by a number of errors of law.
The appellant submits in particular that the General Court’s finding is vitiated, first, by an error of assessment of point 3.2(d) of the Guarantee Notice and, second, by an incorrect allocation of the burden of proof between the Commission and the Member State concerned, in breach of the authority devolving from the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Furthermore, the conclusion reached by the judgment under appeal rests on completely insufficient evidence which, in any event, does not predate the granting of measure No 2, in breach of the case-law of the Court in the judgment of 26 March 2020, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission (C-244/18 P, EU:C:2020:238).
Lastly, the appellant submits that that conclusion is based merely on a negative assumption, which rests on the lack of information allowing the opposite conclusion to be reached, without there being any other evidence of such a nature as positively to establish the existence of such an advantage.
Case T-240/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Lacapelle v Parliament (Interim relief — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EP delegation, Member of the European Parliament, disciplinary proceedings, election monitoring, elective office








C_2022318EN.01003801.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/38






Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Lacapelle v Parliament
(Case T-240/22 R)
(Interim relief - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
(2022/C 318/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Lin Lacapelle (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Decision D-301937 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022, which excluded him from participation in the election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Special report 17/2022 ‘External consultants at the European Commission – Scope for reform’ 2022/C 255/06
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Commission, consultancy, operation of the Institutions, outsourcing, servant (EU)








C_2022255EN.01000601.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/6






Special report 17/2022
‘External consultants at the European Commission – Scope for reform’
(2022/C 255/06)
The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 17/2022: ‘External consultants at the European Commission – Scope for reform’.
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=61461
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 July 2022 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 July 2022 2022/C 255/05
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2022255EN.01000501.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/5






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 July 2022
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 July 2022
(2022/C 255/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0425 




JPY


Japanese yen


141,05 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4391 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86648 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7783 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0027 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3651 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,753 




HUF


Hungarian forint


401,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7168 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9457 




TRY


Turkish lira


17,4608 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5382 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3492 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1801 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6929 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4565 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,58 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1323 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9870 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5310 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 621,64 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5943 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,452 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,186 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5117 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1150 




INR


Indian rupee


82,3747 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-241/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Juvin v Parliament (Interim relief — Law governing the Institutions — Member of Parliament — Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EP delegation, Member of the European Parliament, disciplinary proceedings, election monitoring, elective office








C_2022318EN.01003802.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/38






Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Juvin v Parliament
(Case T-241/22 R)
(Interim relief - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
(2022/C 318/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Hervé Juvin (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Decision D-301936 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022, which excluded him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.