do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-468/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01009001.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/90






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-468/22)
(2022/C 359/110)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement, nr. 20868 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising:






—


CHF 1 984 763,43 and EUR 22 856 655,23, the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of CHF 1 716 822,98 and EUR 18 655 393,62, interest of CHF 51 915,64 and EUR 1 040 629,74 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of CHF 216 024,81 and EUR 3 160 631,87.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the aggregate of (i) 2,5 % (250 basis points) and (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01, until payment is made.














—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the applicant (subrogated to the European Investment Bank’s claims).
Case T-466/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01008901.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/89






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-466/22)
(2022/C 359/108)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart, and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement nr. 80310 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:






—


EUR 363 150,97, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 301 679,16, interest of EUR 34 100,36 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 27 371,45










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.














—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Case T-454/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — Sky v EUIPO — Skyliners (SKYLINERS)
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, marketing, printing, registered trade mark, sport, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01005501.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/55






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — Sky v EUIPO — Skyliners (SKYLINERS)
(Case T-454/22)
(2022/C 340/74)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska-Orabona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

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 SKYLINERS — Application for registration No 14 570 915

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2022 in Case R 0006/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, in case the other party joins the proceedings, the intervener, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5) and 8(4) in conjunction with Article 41(1)(a) and (c) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 in conjunction with Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 21 July 2022 2022/C 281/03
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022281EN.01000301.xml










22.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 July 2022
(2022/C 281/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0199 




JPY


Japanese yen


141,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4446 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85545 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4260 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9924 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1750 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,496 




HUF


Hungarian forint


400,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7610 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9391 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0327 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4848 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3178 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0056 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6479 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4218 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,47 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5195 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9040 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5200 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 342,25 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5457 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,512 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,660 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5777 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9410 




INR


Indian rupee


81,4510 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-503/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural production, common organisation of markets, fruit, interprofessional agreement, market approval, packaging, vegetable








C_2022424EN.01002401.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
(Case C-503/22)
(2022/C 424/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested and, in particular, as authorising, where EU rules lay down marketing and packaging rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more stringent rules in an inter-trade agreement and their extension to all operators?










2.


If the answer to question 1 depends on whether it is ‘marketing rules’, mentioned in point (d) of Article 164(4), or ‘minimum standards of packing and presentation’, referred to in point (k) thereof, that are at issue, does the definition of size ranges intended to ensure the uniformity of products in the same package fall under marketing rules or under standards of packing and presentation?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.
Case T-456/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01008601.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/86






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-456/22)
(2022/C 359/105)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement with nr. 22057 (hereafter ‘the Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising:






—


EUR 18 440 034,97, the amount due to the EU as at 30 June 2022, which is principal of EUR 13 942 526,00, interest of EUR 2 589 128,20 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 1 908 380,77.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made.














—


for payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement since 9 August 2017 comprising EUR 5 405,54, the amount due to the Bank as at 30 June 2022, which is contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 14 June 2022 (which is the date that EU paid the related instalment of principal and interest under the 2000 Guarantee)).










—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the EU (subrogated to the Bank’s claims) and the amount due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the Bank as contractual default interest.
Case C-500/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Novo Banco SA — Sucursal en España, Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução v Proyectos, Obras y Servicios de Badajoz SL
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, bank resolution, bond, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, ownership, right to justice








C_2022482EN.01000501.xml










19.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Novo Banco SA — Sucursal en España, Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução v Proyectos, Obras y Servicios de Badajoz SL
(Case C-500/22)
(2022/C 482/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants in the appeal in cassation: Novo Banco SA — Sucursal en España, Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução

Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Proyectos, Obras y Servicios de Badajoz SL

Questions referred







1.


Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 (1) which entails the recognition in a host Member State of the effects of a decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which has not been published in the manner required by Article 6(1) to (4) of Directive 2001/24 compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality and the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 21(2) of the Charter?










2.


Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which entails the recognition in a host Member State of the effects of a decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which transferred back to the failing bank to which the resolution measures were applied the obligations and responsibilities arising from a senior bond which was acquired by a third party while those obligations and responsibilities were in the ownership of the ‘bridge bank’ compatible with the fundamental right to property under Article 17 of the Charter and the general principle of legal certainty?






(1)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10718 – KINGSPAN / ONDURA) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 281/06
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, building insulation, building materials, economic concentration, energy technology, information technology, lighting, merger control, metal product, plastics industry








C_2022281EN.01000801.xml










22.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10718 – KINGSPAN / ONDURA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 281/06)

1.   
On 14 July 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:






—


Kingspan Group Limited (‘Kingspan’, United Kingdom), controlled by Kingspan Group Plc (United Kingdom),










—


Ondura SAS (‘Ondura’, France), indirectly controlled by Naxicap Partners




Kingspan will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Ondura.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


Kingspan is active in the manufacture of sandwich panels, insulation, light & air solutions, water & energy and data & flooring technology worldwide,










—


Ondura is active in the production and supply of lightweight roofing and waterproofing solutions for pitched and flat roofs, transparent and translucent plastic sheets, accessories and complementary products worldwide.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10718 – KINGSPAN / ONDURA
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-467/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01008902.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/89






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-467/22)
(2022/C 359/109)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement nr. 80211 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:






—


EUR 1 959 745,31, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 1 680 510,04, interest of EUR 116 961,48 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 162 273,79.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.














—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Case T-220/22: Order of the General Court of 22 July 2022 — CiviBank v ECB
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, equal treatment, rights of the defence, shareholder, shareholding, takeover bid








C_2022359EN.01009701.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/97






Order of the General Court of 22 July 2022 — CiviBank v ECB
(Case T-220/22) (1)

(2022/C 359/119)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
Case T-469/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01009101.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/91






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-469/22)
(2022/C 359/111)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement, nr. 20948 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising:






—


EUR 28 777 508,71, the amount due to the EU as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 27 388 963,40, interest of EUR 116 091,27 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 1 272 454,04.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any given relevant period) of (i) the relevant interbank rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made.














—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the applicant (subrogated to the European Investment Bank’s claims).