do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-592/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2022 by Luís Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2022 in Case T-287/22, Novais v Portugal
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, infringement of EU law, jurisdiction








C_2023134EN.01000202.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/2






Appeal brought on 12 September 2022 by Luís Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2022 in Case T-287/22, Novais v Portugal
(Case C-592/22 P)
(2023/C 134/03)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Luís Miguel Novais (represented by: C. Almeida Lopes, Á. Oliveira, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic
By order of 17 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Luís Miguel Novais to bear his own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 9 September 2022 2022/C 349/03
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022349EN.01000501.xml










12.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

9 September 2022
(2022/C 349/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0049 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86860 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6643 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9657 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9836 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,536 




HUF


Hungarian forint


396,30 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7210 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9019 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,3282 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4704 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3070 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,8871 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6463 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4063 




KRW


South Korean won


1 384,64 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3753 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9543 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5245 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 905,33 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5200 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,098 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,508 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2087 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9910 




INR


Indian rupee


79,9685 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-570/22: Action brought on 12 September 2022 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Commission
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, database








C_2022451EN.01001601.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/16






Action brought on 12 September 2022 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Commission
(Case T-570/22)
(2022/C 451/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety the decision of the European Commission C(2022) 4816 final of 3 July 2022, pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)











—


order that the defendant pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.





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 infringement of Articles 2(1) and 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Commission failed to provide access to information from the relevant databases that qualifies as documents falling within the scope of the applicant’s requests, and the Commission failed to identify and provide access to all documents falling within the scope of the applicant’s requests, including the intermediate documents containing information extracted from the relevant databases.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, as required by Article 296 TFEU.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case T-130/22: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2022 — Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO — Esi (TRAUMGEL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRAUMGEL — Earlier EU word mark Traumeel — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022451EN.01001402.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/14






Order of the General Court of 12 September 2022 — Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO — Esi (TRAUMGEL)
(Case T-130/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRAUMGEL - Earlier EU word mark Traumeel - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 451/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment and partial alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2021 (Case R 813/2021-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 25.4.2022.
Case C-214/22: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, criminal proceedings, infringement of EU law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national implementing measure, offence, organised crime, ownership, seizure of goods








C_2023015EN.01003401.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/34






Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-214/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/43)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Case C-191/22: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — ME v État belge
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age of majority, equal treatment, family migration, family reunification, refugee, right of asylum, young person








C_2023015EN.01003303.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/33






Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — ME v État belge
(Case C-191/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/41)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 213, 30.5.2022.
Case C-591/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 12 September 2022 — L. VOF v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal disease, food-borne disease, poultry, poultry farming, sampling, veterinary inspection








C_2022472EN.01003002.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 12 September 2022 — L. VOF v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
(Case C-591/22)
(2022/C 472/34)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: L. VOF

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred







1.


What constitutes an exceptional case within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010 (1) of 10 March 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella serotypes in adult breeding flocks of Gallus gallus, where the competent authority has reason to question the correctness of a positive test result for salmonella obtained from a routine sampling at the initiative of the food business operator, so that the competent authority may decide to repeat the testing?










2.


Are the following factors relevant in determining whether an exceptional case exists within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Regulation 200/2010:






(i)


(multiple) negative test results for the relevant Salmonella type obtained from subsequent samples taken at the initiative of the food business operator;










(ii)


the fact that only one of the two samples per house yielded a positive result for salmonella;










(iii)


the vaccination status of the (sampled) flock for the relevant Salmonella type in relation to the age of the flock;










(iv)


the number of houses with a positive result for salmonella in relation to the sampling frequency applicable to the relevant Salmonella type;










(v)


the history of the holding in terms of the prevalence of the Salmonella (zoonotic) type detected?














3.


If the answer to question 2(i) is in the affirmative, how much time may be granted to a food business operator to carry out subsequent samplings (or to have them carried out) and submit the results of the investigation, before the competent authority proceeds to implement irreversible follow-up measures following the declaration of contamination?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 61, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 325, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1609 of 12 September 2022 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Marmelada Branca de Odivelas’ (PGI))
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Lisbon and the Tagus Valley, Portugal, designation of origin, fruit product, labelling, pip fruit, product designation








L_2022241EN.01000101.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 241/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1609
of 12 September 2022
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Marmelada Branca de Odivelas’ (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 Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal’s application to register the name ‘Marmelada Branca de Odivelas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Marmelada Branca de Odivelas’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Marmelada Branca de Odivelas’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 12 September 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)  
            OJ C 219, 3.6.2022, p. 20.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Special report 21/2022 ‘The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans - overall appropriate but implementation risks remain’ 2022/C 349/04
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, aid evaluation, coronavirus disease, economic and social cohesion, economic independence, economic recovery, economic reform, epidemic, financial aid








C_2022349EN.01000601.xml










12.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/6






Special report 21/2022
‘The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans - overall appropriate but implementation risks remain’
(2022/C 349/04)
The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 21/2022: ‘The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans - overall appropriate but implementation risks remain’.
The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61946
Case C-593/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2022 — FS and WU v First Bank SA
Date: 2022-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, contract terms, legal rule








C_2022472EN.01003101.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2022 — FS and WU v First Bank SA
(Case C-593/22)
(2022/C 472/35)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: FS and WU

Respondent: First Bank SA

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that






(a)


a ‘contractual term which reflects statutory provisions’ must reproduce, in whole or in part, the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision;
or that










(b)


a ‘contractual term which reflects statutory provisions’ must contain an express reference to the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision;
or, on the contrary, that,










(c)


in order for the exclusion from the scope of the analysis of the unfairness of a contractual term provided for in Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 to be deemed to apply, it is sufficient to apply the general civil-law rule that contracts are supplemented by the law, without any specific reference being made to the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision?














2.


Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the special legal regime for the protection of consumer rights, it is excessive to take the view that the consumer is under an obligation to be familiar with the content of all the legal rules set out in the statutory provisions which supplement a contract, without the seller or supplier first providing the consumer with information to that effect?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).