do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2022 in Case E-2/22 A v the Labour and Welfare Directorate (Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet) (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Social security – Family benefits – Transitional benefits – Requirement of occupational activity) 2023/C 29/07
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, early childhood, family benefit, social security legislation, wage earner








C_2023029EN.01004201.xml










26.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/42






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 29 July 2022
in Case E-2/22
A v the Labour and Welfare Directorate (Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet)


(Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Social security – Family benefits – Transitional benefits – Requirement of occupational activity)


(2023/C 29/07)
In Case E-2/22, A v the Labour and Welfare Directorate (Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Norwegian National Insurance Court (Trygderetten), concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


A benefit such as the transitional benefit at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a family benefit within the meaning of point (j) of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and is not a non-contributory cash benefit within the meaning of Article 3(3) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 70.










2.


In relation to a benefit such as the transitional benefit, it is not relevant in the context of the assessment under the first question that there is a requirement of occupational activity for continued entitlement to the benefit in question when the youngest child reaches the age of one year.






(1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Case T-471/22: Action brought on 29 July 2022 — QM v Council
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022359EN.01009201.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/92






Action brought on 29 July 2022 — QM v Council
(Case T-471/22)
(2022/C 359/112)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: QM (represented by: St. Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all pleas in law set out therein to be well founded;










—


declare that the contested measures may be annulled in part;










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/849 of 30 May 2022 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/840 of 30 May 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay all the applicant’s legal costs, expenses, fees and other expenditure linked to his defence.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging material infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the Council to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment on the part of the Council.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to conduct a business.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a normal life.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of reputation.






(1)  OJ 2022 L 148, p. 52.

(2)  OJ 2022 L 148, p. 8.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 July 2022 2022/C 288/04
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022288EN.01003401.xml










29.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/34






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 July 2022
(2022/C 288/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0122 




JPY


Japanese yen


137,26 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4442 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83586 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4490 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9745 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8983 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,609 




HUF


Hungarian forint


407,30 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7908 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9342 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,1417 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4535 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2986 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,9456 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6172 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4009 




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,45 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0011 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8325 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5200 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 107,59 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5071 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,592 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,097 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3300 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6760 




INR


Indian rupee


80,6535 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2022 in Case E-5/21 Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury (Articles 6 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Social security – Migrant worker – Equality of treatment – Calculation of maternity benefit) 2023/C 29/06
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, equal treatment, labour market, maternity leave, migrant worker, pay, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation








C_2023029EN.01004101.xml










26.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/41






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 29 July 2022
in Case E-5/21
Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury


(Articles 6 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Social security – Migrant worker – Equality of treatment – Calculation of maternity benefit)


(2023/C 29/06)
In Case E-5/21, Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur), concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), and in particular Articles 6 and 21 of that regulation, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:
Articles 6 and 21(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems do not oblige the competent institution of an EEA State to calculate the amount of a benefit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the basis of income received in another EEA State. However, Article 21(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, interpreted in accordance with the objective set out in Article 29 of the EEA Agreement, requires that the amount of a benefit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, granted to a migrant worker who, during the reference period set out in national law had only had income in another EEA State, must be calculated by taking into account the income of a person who has comparable experience and qualifications and who is similarly employed in the EEA State in which that benefit is sought.


(1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10745 – EMIL FREY / FCA CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE / FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES CR / FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES SR) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 306/01
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, after-sales service, distributor, economic concentration, merger control, motor car, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2022306EN.01000101.xml










11.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 306/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10745 – EMIL FREY / FCA CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE / FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES CR / FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES SR)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 306/01)
On 29 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 32022M10745. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-51/22: Order of the General Court of 29 July 2022 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a citrus press — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Decision adopted following the revocation of an earlier decision — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fruit juice, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022398EN.01002601.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/26






Order of the General Court of 29 July 2022 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)
(Case T-51/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a citrus press - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision adopted following the revocation of an earlier decision - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 398/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Santos (Vaulx-en-Velin, France) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 November 2021 (Case R 281/2020-1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Santos is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Case T-472/22: Action brought on 29 July 2022 — Mocom Compounds v EUIPO — Centemia Conseils (Near-to-Prime)
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, plastics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022359EN.01009301.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/93






Action brought on 29 July 2022 — Mocom Compounds v EUIPO — Centemia Conseils (Near-to-Prime)
(Case T-472/22)
(2022/C 359/113)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Mocom Compounds GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bornholdt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Centemia Conseils (Angevillers, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Near-to-Prime’ — Application No 16 448 524

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2022 in Case R 2178/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


amend the contested decision to the effect that Decision No 47 561 C of the Invalidity Division of 12 November 2021 is annulled and the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 16 448 524 is dismissed;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-511/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2022 — AQ v trendtours Touristik GmbH
Date: 2022-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, package travel, provision of services, termination of a contract, traveller








C_2022441EN.01000402.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2022 — AQ v trendtours Touristik GmbH
(Case C-511/22)
(2022/C 441/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AQ

Defendant: trendtours Touristik GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘the Package Travel Directive’) be interpreted as providing for a further right of termination — in addition to that provided for in Article 12(1) of that directive — the legal consequences of which apply only if the traveller invokes that right in his or her declaration of termination?










2.


Must Article 12(2) of the Package Travel Directive be interpreted as meaning that an obligation to pay a termination fee does not cease to apply where the traveller does not state a reason in his or her declaration of termination of the package travel contract or states a reason which is not related to an unavoidable and extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1.