do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-462/22: Action brought on 20 July 2022 — Millennium BCP Participações and BCP África v Commission
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, infringement procedure (EU), principle of legal certainty, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax relief








C_2022340EN.01005601.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/56






Action brought on 20 July 2022 — Millennium BCP Participações and BCP África v Commission
(Case T-462/22)
(2022/C 340/76)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicants: Millennium BCP Participações, SGPS, SU, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) and BCP África (Funchal) (represented by: B. Santiago, L. do Nascimento Ferreira, P. Gouveia e Melo, D. Oda and A. Queiroz Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


order the European Commission to put before the Court the letter of 28 June 2006, in which the Portuguese authorities notified the Commission of draft measure ‘Regime III’, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, including any and all documents appended to that letter, for the purposes of Article 88(1) and (2) and Article 89(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;










—


annul Article 1 and Article 4(1) of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, in so far as those articles apply to the SGPS [Sociedades Gestoras de Participações Sociais (holding companies; ‘SGPS’)] — such as the applicants — referred to in Article 36(8) of the Estatuto dos Beneficios Fiscais (Statute governing Tax Benefits);










—


Order the defendant institution to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings, and pay those incurred by the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the breach of the obligation to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.
Second plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, in that Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III includes SGPS amongst the beneficiaries concerned by the recovery obligation in the event of a failure to satisfy the job creation requirement;
Third plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1304 of 20 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 (‘Valašský frgál’ (PGI))
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Moravian-Silesian Region, Olomouc Region, Zlín Region, confectionery product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2022197EN.01007401.xml










26.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 197/74








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1304
of 20 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 (‘Valašský frgál’ (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 Czechia’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Valašský frgál’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1263/2013 (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 ‘Valašský frgál’ (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, 20 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1263/2013 of 28 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Valašský frgál (PGI)] (OJ L 326, 6.12.2013, p. 5).

(3)  
            OJ C 134, 25.3.2022, p. 40.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10809 – CD&R / TPG / COVETRUS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 286/02
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: animal health, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, veterinary medicinal product, wholesale trade








C_2022286EN.01001601.xml










27.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/16






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10809 – CD&R / TPG / COVETRUS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 286/02)
On 20 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 32022M10809. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-464/22: Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QN v European Commission
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, principle of legal certainty, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2022368EN.01002701.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/27






Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QN v European Commission
(Case T-464/22)
(2022/C 368/46)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: QN (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment regarding fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the aid scheme Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III (‘ZFM’), in particular as regards the origin of the profits and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging undue delay on the part of the Commission in amending the successive versions of the ZFM scheme as regards the type of employment relationship, the criterion for calculating the number of jobs created/maintained and the geographical location of the jobs.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the decision adopted is not sufficiently reasoned as regards the meaning of ZFM jobs and as regards the activity effectively and materially performed in Madeira.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial and of the principle of equality of arms, due to the delay on the part of the Commission in correcting parts of the ZFM legal framework and the short time limit allowed for the applicant to exercise its rights of defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the content of the contested decision.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the amendment of the State aid scheme in place for a certain regulatory period.
Case T-448/22: Action brought on 20 July 2022 — PW v EEAS
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, dependant, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022380EN.01001801.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/18






Action brought on 20 July 2022 — PW v EEAS
(Case T-448/22)
(2022/C 380/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PW (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implicit decision of the defendant dated 30 July 2021 refusing to correct the calculation of the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses for 2020 as regards his children and, in as far as necessary, the annulment of the decision of the defendant, dated 14 April 2022, rejecting his complaint filed on 28 October 2021, under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations; and,










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and a breach of the principle of good administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care.
Case T-461/22: Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QQ v Commission
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, principle of legal certainty, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2022368EN.01002601.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/26






Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QQ v Commission
(Case T-461/22)
(2022/C 368/45)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: QQ (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment regarding fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the aid scheme Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III (‘ZFM’), in particular as regards the origin of the profits and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging undue delay on the part of the Commission in amending the successive versions of the ZFM scheme as regards the criterion for calculating the number of jobs created/maintained.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the decision adopted is not sufficiently reasoned as regards the meaning of ZFM jobs and as regards the activity effectively and materially performed in Madeira.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial and of the principle of equality of arms, due to the delay on the part of the Commission in correcting parts of the ZFM legal framework and the short time limit allowed for the applicant to exercise its rights of defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the content of the contested decision.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the amendment of the State aid scheme in place for a certain regulatory period.
Decision (EU) 2022/1312 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 20 July 2022 appointing Judges to the General Court
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2022198EN.01001601.xml










27.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 198/16








            DECISION (EU) 2022/1312 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 20 July 2022
         
appointing Judges to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of 26 Judges of the General Court are due to expire on 31 August 2022. Appointments to those posts should therefore be made for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2028.












(2)


It has been proposed that the terms of office of Mr Ioannis DIMITRAKOPOULOS, Mr Gerhard HESSE and Mr Tihamér TÓTH as Judges of the General Court be renewed.












(3)


Ms Elisabeth TICHY-FISSLBERGER has been nominated for a first term of office as Judge of the General Court.












(4)


The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of those candidates to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed Judges of the General Court for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2028:






—


Mr Ioannis DIMITRAKOPOULOS,










—


Mr Gerhard HESSE,










—


Ms Elisabeth TICHY-FISSLBERGER,










—


Mr Tihamér TÓTH.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 20 July 2022.


The President

E. HRDÁ
Case T-460/22: Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QP v Commission
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, principle of legal certainty, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2022368EN.01002502.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/25






Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QP v Commission
(Case T-460/22)
(2022/C 368/44)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: QP (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment regarding fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the aid scheme Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III (‘ZFM’), in particular as regards the origin of the profits and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging undue delay on the part of the Commission in amending the successive versions of the ZFM scheme as regards the criterion for calculating the number of jobs created/maintained.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the decision adopted is not sufficiently reasoned as regards the meaning of ZFM jobs and as regards the activity effectively and materially performed in Madeira.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial and of the principle of equality of arms, due to the delay on the part of the Commission in correcting parts of the ZFM legal framework and the short time limit allowed for the applicant to exercise its rights of defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, due to the negligently delayed action on the part of the Commission and the content of the contested decision.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the amendment of the State aid scheme in place for a certain regulatory period.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 19 July 2022 2022/C 278/04
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022278EN.01000501.xml










20.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 July 2022
(2022/C 278/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0245 




JPY


Japanese yen


141,01 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4449 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85303 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4964 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9918 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1760 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,555 




HUF


Hungarian forint


397,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7598 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9395 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0180 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4869 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3264 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0423 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6456 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4269 




KRW


South Korean won


1 340,33 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4570 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9064 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5093 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 344,49 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5590 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,583 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,492 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5454 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8552 




INR


Indian rupee


81,8980 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-484/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2022 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by the parents
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child protection, family protection, foreign national, illegal migration, international protection, protection of privacy, removal, return migration, young person








C_2022380EN.01000502.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2022 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by the parents
(Case C-484/22)
(2022/C 380/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: GS, represented by the parents

Interested party: Die Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding, without exception, the lawfulness of a return decision adopted in respect of a minor third-country national, accompanied by a refusal of his or her application for international protection and setting him or her a time limit for voluntary departure of 30 days from the date on which the decision becomes final, where, for legal reasons, neither parent can be returned to a country referred to in Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC in the foreseeable future and the minor cannot therefore reasonably be expected to leave the Member State either, on account of his or her family life which is worthy of protection (Articles 7 and 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (2) Article 8 of the ECHR), or is it sufficient that, on the basis of a national statutory provision, the child’s best interests and family life within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC are to be taken into account, following the adoption of the return decision, by virtue of a suspension of the removal?


(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
Case T-30/22: Order of the General Court of 20 July 2022 — Sanoptis v EUIPO — Synoptis Pharma (SANOPTIS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, eye disease, health care, medical centre, medical diagnosis, private medical treatment, registered trade mark, surgery, therapeutics, trade-mark law








C_2022359EN.01007401.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/74






Order of the General Court of 20 July 2022 — Sanoptis v EUIPO — Synoptis Pharma (SANOPTIS)
(Case T-30/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 359/92)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sanoptis Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rost, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Synoptis Pharma sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Sanoptis Sàrl, seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2021 (Case R 850/2021-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Sanoptis Sàrl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.