do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-408/22: Action brought on 5 July 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN 7)
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, electronic game, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022318EN.01004302.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/43






Action brought on 5 July 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN 7)
(Case T-408/22)
(2022/C 318/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: psmtec GmbH (Illertissen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 — Application No 18 123 915

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2022 in Case R 1498/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the opposition in its entirety;










—


refuse the EU trade mark application No 18 123 915 for ‘SEVEN SEVEN 7’ in respect of all of the contested goods in Class 9, namely ‘Software for games on video devices; Game software; Electronic game software; Software’;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-444/22 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, criminal proceedings, damages, data protection, fight against crime, personal data








C_2022340EN.01002201.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/22






Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol

(Case C-444/22 P)
(2022/C 340/29)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Appellant: Leon Leonard Johan Veen (represented by: M. Mandzák, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;










—


Refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings;










—


Declare that the General Court must rule as to the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal in its entirety is made up of four grounds of appeal. The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the case and misapplied substantive law, in particularly so far as concerns the defendant’s liability for harm and its obligation to process personal data in the context of cross-checks. The General Court also incorrectly found that there was a lack of a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the harmful event, and gave inadequate reasons for the judgment under appeal.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10750 – KÄRCHER / WOCO / WAIRIFY) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 271/01
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, cleaning industry, economic concentration, machinery, merger control, motor vehicle industry, secondary sector, technology








C_2022271EN.01000101.xml










14.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10750 – KÄRCHER / WOCO / WAIRIFY)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 271/01)
On 5 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 German language 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 32022M10750. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-439/22: Action brought on 5 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, information technology, national implementing measure, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, sanction (EU), trans-European network, transmission network, universal service








C_2022326EN.01001302.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/13






Action brought on 5 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-439/22)
(2022/C 326/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: U. Małecka, L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive; or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;










—


order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 5 544,9 per day with the minimum lump sum of EUR 1 376 000.










—


if the failure to fulfil obligations found in paragraph 1 has continued until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 24 942,9 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance with its obligations under the Directive; and










—


to order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code lays down rules on telecommunications markets. Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive lays down the date of 21 December 2020 as the transposition deadline for the Member States.
By letter of 3 February 2021, the Commission addressed a letter of formal notice to Ireland in circumstances where the Commission had not received from Ireland any notification concerning the adoption of the necessary provisions to comply with the Directive. By letter of 23 September 2021, in the absence of any further notification regarding the transposition of the Directive, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland. Nevertheless, the transposing measures have not yet been adopted by Ireland and, in any event, they have not been notified to the Commission.


(1)  OJ 2018, L 321, p. 36.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 July 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol on the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Cook Islands (12640/2021 — C9-0006/2022 — 2021/0312(NLE))
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Development, Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament
Subjects: Cook Islands, agreement (EU), fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing rights, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries








C_2023047EN.01029201.xml










7.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/292






P9_TA(2022)0272
EU/Cook Islands Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: implementation protocol ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 July 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol on the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Cook Islands (12640/2021 — C9-0006/2022 — 2021/0312(NLE))
(Consent)
(2023/C 47/28)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12640/2021),










—


having regard to the draft protocol on the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Cook Islands (12633/2021),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0006/2022),










—


having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0197/2022),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Cook Islands.
Opinion Of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 5 July 2022 concerning a Draft Decision in Case AT.40522 – Metal Packaging Meeting by Audio Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’ Rapporteur: The Netherlands 2023/C 57/06
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, metal product, packaging, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2023057EN.01001001.xml










16.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/10






Opinion Of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 5 July 2022 concerning a Draft Decision in Case AT.40522 – Metal Packaging
Meeting by Audio Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’
Rapporteur: The Netherlands
(2023/C 57/06)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice was capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003. 8 Member States voted in favour. 1 Member State voted against.



7.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and on the 2008 Settlement Notice.



8.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.



9.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-442/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 July 2022 — P Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, invoicing, taxpayer, wage earner








C_2022380EN.01000302.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 July 2022 — P Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie
(Case C-442/22)
(2022/C 380/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: P Sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where an employee of a VAT taxable person has issued a fraudulent invoice showing VAT, on which he or she has included the employer’s details as the taxable person, without that employer’s knowledge and consent, the person who enters the VAT on the invoice and who is thus liable to pay the VAT is to be considered:






—


the VAT taxable person whose details were unlawfully used in the invoice; or










—


the employee who unlawfully entered VAT on that invoice using the details of the VAT taxable person?














2.


In connection with the question of who is to be considered, within the meaning of Article 203 of the aforementioned Council Directive 2006/112/EC, the person who enters VAT on the invoice and is thus liable to pay VAT in the circumstances described in Question 1, is it relevant whether the VAT taxable person that employs the employee who unlawfully entered that taxable person’s details on a VAT invoice may be considered to have failed to exercise due diligence in supervising that employee?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1191 of 5 July 2022 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Pimiento de Gernika/Gernikako Piperra’ (PGI)]
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Basque Country, Spain, designation of origin, fruit vegetable, labelling, product designation








L_2022185EN.01001001.xml










12.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 185/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1191
of 5 July 2022
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Pimiento de Gernika/Gernikako Piperra’ (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Pimiento de Gernika/Gernikako Piperra’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1107/2010 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Pimiento de Gernika/Gernikako Piperra’ (PGI) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 July 2022.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1107/2010 of 30 November 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pimiento de Gernika or Gernikako Piperra (PGI)) (OJ L 315, 1.12.2010, p. 18).

(3)  
            OJ C 122, 17.3.2022, p. 38.
Case T-413/22: Action brought on 5 July 2022 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni dogadaji (DRINKOPOLY)
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gaming, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022318EN.01004401.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/44






Action brought on 5 July 2022 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni dogadaji (DRINKOPOLY)
(Case T-413/22)
(2022/C 318/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative DRINKOPOLY mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 062 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2022 in Case R 596/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Opinion 03/2022 (pursuant to Article 322(2), TFEU) concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation on the methods and procedure for making available own resources based on the Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and reallocated profits, and on the measures to meet cash requirements (2022/0071 (NLE)) 2022/C 309/04
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU Member State, EU budget, EU control, budgetary control, carbon neutrality, financial control, own resources








C_2022309EN.01000401.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/4






Opinion 03/2022


(pursuant to Article 322(2), TFEU)


concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation on the methods and procedure for making available own resources based on the Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and reallocated profits, and on the measures to meet cash requirements (2022/0071 (NLE))
(2022/C 309/04)
The European Court of Auditors has published its opinion 03/2022 (pursuant to Article 322(2), TFEU) concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation on the methods and procedure for making available own resources based on the Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and reallocated profits, and on the measures to meet cash requirements (2022/0071(NLE)).
The opinion can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website:






 


https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61904
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10755 – ADVENT / IRCA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 269/03
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, United States, bakery, confectionery product, dairy ice cream, economic concentration, food additive, investment company, merger control, semi-manufactured goods








C_2022269EN.01002501.xml










13.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/25






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10755 – ADVENT / IRCA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 269/03)
On 5 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 (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 32022M10755. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Special report 14/2022: “The Commission’s response to fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy – Time to dig deeper” 2022/C 258/04
Date: 2022-07-05
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU control, EU financing, European Commission, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, fraud against the EU, rural development








C_2022258EN.01000401.xml










5.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/4






Special report 14/2022:
“The Commission’s response to fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy – Time to dig deeper”
(2022/C 258/04)
The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 14/2022: “The Commission’s response to fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy – Time to dig deeper”.
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=61337