do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10867 – GIP / AZURE / OMERS / VTG) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 350/02
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, investment, investment company, logistics, merger control, pension scheme, rail network, vehicle on rails, vehicle rental








C_2022350EN.01000201.xml










13.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10867 – GIP / AZURE / OMERS / VTG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 350/02)
On 7 September 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 32022M10867. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-627/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MONSOON — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 34 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022418EN.01003101.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/31






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON)
(Case T-627/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONSOON - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 34 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 418/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Karsten Manufacturing Corp. (Phoenix, Arizona, United States) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2021 (Case R 1125/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Segimerus Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Karsten Manufacturing Corp.






(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case C-448/21: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível — Portugal) — Portugália — Administração de Patrimónios, SGPS, SA v Banco BPI
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic mail, fraud, intra-EU payment, payment, payment system, proof, provision of services








C_2023015EN.01003204.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/32






Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível — Portugal) — Portugália — Administração de Patrimónios, SGPS, SA v Banco BPI
(Case C-448/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/38)
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.
Case C-391/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Boriss Cilevičs and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Restriction — Justification — The organisation of education systems — Institutions of higher education — Obligation to provide courses of study in the official language of the Member State concerned — Article 4(2) TEU — National identity of a Member State — Defence and promotion of the official language of a Member State — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, educational system, higher education, national identity, official language, principle of proportionality, right of establishment








C_2022408EN.01000701.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Boriss Cilevičs and Others
(Case C-391/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Restriction - Justification - The organisation of education systems - Institutions of higher education - Obligation to provide courses of study in the official language of the Member State concerned - Article 4(2) TEU - National identity of a Member State - Defence and promotion of the official language of a Member State - Principle of proportionality)
(2022/C 408/07)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Boriss Cilevičs, Valērijs Agešins, Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Ivans Ribakovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Igors Pimenovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Edgars Kucins, Ivans Klementjevs, Inga Goldberga, Evija Papule, Jānis Krišāns, Jānis Urbanovičs, Ļubova Švecova, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Regīna Ločmele-Luņova, Ivars Zariņš

Interested party: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which, in principle, obliges higher education institutions to provide teaching solely in the official language of that Member State, in so far as such legislation is justified on grounds related to the protection of its national identity, that is to say, that it is necessary and proportionate to the protection of the legitimate aim pursued.


(1)  
            OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10850 – ASMENT DE TEMARA / VEOM / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 367/01
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Morocco, building materials, economic concentration, energy industry, holding company, joint venture, merger control, provision of services, waste, waste management, water management








C_2022367EN.01000101.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10850 – ASMENT DE TEMARA / VEOM / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 367/01)
On 7 September 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 French 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 32022M10850. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-585/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2022 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: acquisition of property, debt, economic concentration, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, interest, loan, right of establishment, share, tax relief








C_2022463EN.01001702.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2022 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-585/22)
(2022/C 463/23)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is not deductible when determining the profits of the taxable person because the debt concerned must be categorised as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, regardless of whether the debt concerned, viewed in isolation, was contracted at arm’s length?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and/or 63 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the deduction of the interest on a loan debt contracted with an entity related to the taxable person and regarded as (part of) a wholly artificial arrangement, being a debt connected with the acquisition or extension of an interest in an entity which, following that acquisition or extension, is a related entity, is disallowed in full when determining the profits of the taxable person, even where that interest in itself does not exceed the amount that would have been agreed upon between companies which are independent of one another?










3.


For the purpose of answering questions 1 and/or 2, does it make any difference whether the relevant acquisition or extension of the interest relates (a) to an entity that was already an entity related to the taxable person prior to that acquisition or extension, or (b) to an entity that becomes an entity related to the taxpayer only after such acquisition or extension?
Case T-507/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Migadakis v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest — Video examination — Minimum points threshold — Equality of treatment — Whether marking was objective)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), equal treatment, recruitment, servant (EU)








C_2022418EN.01003001.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/30






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Migadakis v ENISA
(Case T-507/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest - Video examination - Minimum points threshold - Equality of treatment - Whether marking was objective)
(2022/C 418/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ioannis Migadakis (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (represented by: I. Taurina, G. Pappa and C. Chalanouli, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbauer, lawyer)

Re:

By his action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks to have set aside the decision of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) of 30 October 2020 not to accept his application.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr. Ioannis Migadakis is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Case T-448/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines — Action for annulment — Express decision adopted after implied refusal of access — No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action — Partial refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, coronavirus disease, delivery, disclosure of information, epidemic, vaccine








C_2022418EN.01002801.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/28






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission
(Case T-448/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decision adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
(2022/C 418/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 2 June 2021, granting him full access to certain documents and partial access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Case T-217/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — SB v eu-LISA (Civil service — Contract staff — Staff of eu-LISA — Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period — Obligation to state reasons — Normal probationary conditions — Right to be heard — Procedural irregularities — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, dismissal, probationary period, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2022418EN.01002501.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/25






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — SB v eu-LISA
(Case T-217/21) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Staff of eu-LISA - Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period - Obligation to state reasons - Normal probationary conditions - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularities - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration)
(2022/C 418/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: SB (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 3 August 2020 by which his contract as a member of the contract staff was terminated at the end of the probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case T-9/22: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT) (European Union trade mark — Application for the European Union word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2022418EN.01003501.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/35






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)
(Case T-9/22) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for the European Union word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 418/47)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and reversal of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 771/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 September 2022 2022/C 343/02
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022343EN.01000201.xml










7.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 September 2022
(2022/C 343/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


0,9928 




JPY


Japanese yen


140,91 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85743 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6825 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9745 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8945 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,550 




HUF


Hungarian forint


402,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7068 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8424 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0938 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4651 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3029 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,7932 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6313 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,3947 




KRW


South Korean won


1 366,65 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0805 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9091 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5133 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 783,94 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4676 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,655 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,242 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,1300 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,8545 




INR


Indian rupee


79,2305 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-751/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Sick leave — Rejection of medical certificates — Unjustified absences — Action for annulment and for damages)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, absenteeism, incapacity for work, indemnification, medical report, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022418EN.01002101.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/21






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KL v EIB
(Case T-751/20) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Sick leave - Rejection of medical certificates - Unjustified absences - Action for annulment and for damages)
(2022/C 418/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KL (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 18 May 2020 by which the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejected the medical certificates which he had produced to justify his absences from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations, and, secondly, compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 18 May 2020 by which the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejected the medical certificates produced by KL to justify his absences from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the EIB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case T-552/22: Action brought on 7 September 2022 — mataharispaclub v EUIPO — Rouha (SpaClubMatahari)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, health care, medical centre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022408EN.01004101.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/41






Action brought on 7 September 2022 — mataharispaclub v EUIPO — Rouha (SpaClubMatahari)
(Case T-552/22)
(2022/C 408/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: mataharispaclub s.r.o. (Mníšek pod Brdy, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Diamant, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alena Rouha (Prague, Czech Republic)

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: EU word mark ‘SpaClubMatahari’ — EU trade mark No 17 642 661

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2022 in Case R 937/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.