do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-519/22: Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, egg, fruit, milk product, non-alcoholic beverage, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2022398EN.01003401.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/34






Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)
(Case T-519/22)
(2022/C 398/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FITNESS — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 894/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 70 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 72(6) 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 in conjunction with Article 70 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-176/22: Order of the General Court of 29 August 2022 — Mellish v Commission
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, United Kingdom, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, expatriate worker, nationality, pay, staff regulations (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2022398EN.01003701.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/37






Order of the General Court of 29 August 2022 — Mellish v Commission
(Case T-176/22) (1)

(2022/C 398/45)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.
Case T-521/22: Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Golovaty v Council
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, legality, ownership, rights of the defence, territorial dispute








C_2022389EN.01001901.xml










10.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/19






Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Golovaty v Council
(Case T-521/22)
(2022/C 389/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ivan Ivanovich Golovaty (Soligorsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1), insofar as it concerns the applicant (Annex A.2);










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (2) insofar as it concerns the applicant (Annex A.3);










—


order the Council pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.





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 the violation of the principle of legality.






—


The reasons for listing of the applicant contain a number of terms which are defined neither in the Contested Acts nor in jurisprudence. In view of this, their meaning is not clear to the applicant, and he cannot unambiguously understand them and decide how to act in the context of the measures taken against him by the Council.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.






—


The Council failed to demonstrate the manner in which the applicant benefits from or supports the Lukashenka regime. Therefore, the Council failed to prove that the applicant benefits from or supports the Lukashenka regime.










—


The Council failed to demonstrate the manner in which the applicant is responsible for the repression of civil society. Therefore, the Council failed to prove that the applicant is responsible for the repression of civil society.










—


Most of the evidence adduced by the Council are unreliable, inaccurate or not related to the applicant or the reasons for listing.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the property rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of the obligation to state reasons.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of respect for the rights of defence.






(1)  OJ 2022, L 153, p. 77.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 153, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: — 0,00 % on 1 August 2022 — Euro exchange rates (2022/C 295/04) (Official Journal of the European Union C 295 of 2 August 2022) 2022/C 325/05
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2022325EN.01000601.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/6






Corrigendum to Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: — 0,00 % on 1 August 2022 — Euro exchange rates (2022/C 295/04)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 295 of 2 August 2022
)

(2022/C 325/05)
In the title:
for

‘0,00 % on 1 August 2022’,

read

‘0,50 % on 1 August 2022’.
Case T-517/22: Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Aldi v EUIPO — Heredero de Navarra (LYTTOS)
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, food supplement, foodstuff, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022389EN.01001801.xml










10.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/18






Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Aldi v EUIPO — Heredero de Navarra (LYTTOS)
(Case T-517/22)
(2022/C 389/20)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heredero de Navarra, SL (Mendavia, Spain)


Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LYTTOS — Application No 18 126 191

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2022 in Case R 1462/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10781 – KB AG / KB SFN / KBJ) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 339/01
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural vehicle, bus, commercial vehicle, economic concentration, light-duty vehicle, merger control, vehicle on rails, vehicle parts








C_2022339EN.01000101.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10781 – KB AG / KB SFN / KBJ)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 339/01)
On 29 August 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 32022M10781. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-575/22 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2022 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2022 in Case T-337/20, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, data transmission, database, marketing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022441EN.01001501.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/15






Appeal brought on 29 August 2022 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2022 in Case T-337/20, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-575/22 P)
(2022/C 441/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J. Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 10 October 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of the European Union decided to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10633 – SUEZ / ACEA / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 333/03
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: drinking water, economic concentration, energy production, lighting, measuring equipment, merger control, town planning, waste management, water management








C_2022333EN.01000301.xml










1.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 333/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10633 – SUEZ / ACEA / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 333/03)
On 29 August 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 32022M10633. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 August 2022 2022/C 325/03
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022325EN.01000301.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 August 2022
(2022/C 325/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0007 




JPY


Japanese yen


137,02 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4379 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84590 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5703 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9642 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6670 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,635 




HUF


Hungarian forint


410,48 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7485 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8729 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,1923 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4333 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2944 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,8521 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6112 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,3906 




KRW


South Korean won


1 333,46 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7995 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8671 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5135 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 825,57 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4706 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,109 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,035 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,1069 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9240 




INR


Indian rupee


79,9025 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10861 – HG / TEAM.BLUE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 339/02
Date: 2022-08-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet site, data processing, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, service, software








C_2022339EN.01000201.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10861 – HG / TEAM.BLUE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 339/02)
On 29 August 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 32022M10861. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.