do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-633/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 October 2022 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, AE v EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: communications profession, damages, economic situation, enforcement of ruling, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, indemnification, newspaper, principle of proportionality, sports body








C_2023024EN.01002601.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 October 2022 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, AE v EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA
(Case C-633/22)
(2023/C 24/34)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, AE

Respondents: EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 34 and 36 of the Brussels I regulation (1) and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a financial penalty imposed for harm caused to the reputation of a sports club by the publication of a story in a newspaper can manifestly infringe freedom of expression and therefore constitute a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce a judgment?










2.


In the event of an affirmative answer, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the court in which enforcement is sought may find that the penalty is disproportionate only where the damages have been categorised as punitive either by the court of origin or by the court in which enforcement is sought and not where they have been awarded as compensation for non-material damage?










3.


Must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the court in which enforcement is sought may take account only of the deterrent effect of the penalty in the light of the resources of the person on whom the penalty is imposed, or may it have regard to other factors such as the seriousness of the wrong or the extent of the harm?










4.


Can the deterrent effect in the light of the resources of the newspaper in itself form a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce a judgment due to a manifest infringement of the fundamental principle of freedom of the press?










5.


Must the deterrent effect be understood as meaning that the financial stability of the newspaper is threatened or may it simply refer to an intimidating effect?










6.


Must the deterrent effect on the newspaper publishing house and on a journalist as an individual be assessed in the same way?










7.


Is the general economic situation of the print media a relevant factor when assessing whether, beyond the newspaper in question, the penalty is likely to have an intimidating effect on the media overall?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case T-41/22: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament (Action for annulment — Parliament resolution on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, abortion, abuse of power, equal treatment, extremism, national identity, rule of law








C_2022463EN.01004901.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/49






Order of the General Court of 11 October 2022 — Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris v Parliament
(Case T-41/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Parliament resolution on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 463/71)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Koźmiński and T. Siemiński, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and W. Kuzmienko, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland (2021/2925(RSP)).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris shall be ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
Case T-329/22: Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Canalones Castilla v EUIPO — Canalones Novokanal (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts)
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building materials, designs and models








C_2023007EN.01003201.xml










9.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/32






Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Canalones Castilla v EUIPO — Canalones Novokanal (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts)
(Case T-329/22)
(2023/C 7/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Canalones Castilla, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. J. Serrano Irurzun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canalones Novokanal, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts) — Community design No 363 486-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1122/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


if the applicant’s claims are rejected in their entirety, order, in ruling as to costs in the decision closing the proceedings, that the other parties must bear their own costs.





Pleas in law







—


The prior disclosure of the design submitted by the invalidity applicant has not been sufficiently established.










—


In the alternative, the design submitted by the invalidity applicant as a prior design does not produce the same overall impression as the design at issue.










—


In the alternative, the disclosure was abusive due to infringement of copyright.
Case T-631/22: Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points)
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, optical industry, registered trade mark, sales promotion, software, trade-mark law, virtual reality








C_2022463EN.01005602.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/56






Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points)
(Case T-631/22)
(2022/C 463/83)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Beijing Unicorn Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WD Plus GmbH (Hannover, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing a device of a circle with two sharp points — Application for registration No 18 278 716

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 July 2022 in Case R 246/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the EUIPO’s obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10721 – CELANESE / DUPONT (MOBILITY & MATERIALS BUSINESS)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 198/03
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, special chemicals








C_2023198EN.01000301.xml










6.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10721 – CELANESE / DUPONT (MOBILITY & MATERIALS BUSINESS))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 198/03)
On 11 October 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32022M10721. 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.) 10 October 2022 2022/C 390/01
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022390EN.01000101.xml










11.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 October 2022
(2022/C 390/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


0,9697 




JPY


Japanese yen


141,16 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4384 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87730 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9502 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9680 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3378 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,521 




HUF


Hungarian forint


428,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,8655 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9400 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0131 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5360 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3312 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,6120 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7369 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,3939 




KRW


South Korean won


1 384,26 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5866 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9344 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5280 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 872,51 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5091 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,197 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,810 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,0328 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,3588 




INR


Indian rupee


79,9678 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10922 – INTERPARKING SERVIZI / GKSD / JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 390/06
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, parking area, real estate business








C_2022390EN.01000801.xml










11.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10922 – INTERPARKING SERVIZI / GKSD / JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 390/06)

1.   
On 3 October 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:






—


Interparking Servizi S.r.l. (‘Interparking’, Italy), controlled by the Ageas Group,










—


GKSD S.r.l., (‘GKSD’, Italy), controlled by the GK Group.




Interparking and GKSD will acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly-created joint venture (the ‘JV’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


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






—


Interparking is active in the management of paid parking lots in Italy,










—


GKSD provides project management and consultancy services across a range of sectors including healthcare, construction, monitoring, advisory, insurance assessment and legal & tax advisory. GKSD is currently active only in Italy.






3.   

The business activities of the newly set-up JV will be the following: the JV will manage and exploit a recently-built parking lot located in the area of Milan and currently owned by Policlinico San Donato S.p.A. (‘PSD’).



4.   
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.


5.   
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.10922 – INTERPARKING SERVIZI / GKSD / JV
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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10887 – INEOS / SINOPEC / JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 390/04
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: China, chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals








C_2022390EN.01000401.xml










11.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10887 – INEOS / SINOPEC / JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 390/04)

1.   
On 30 September 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:






—


INEOS AG (‘INEOS’, Switzerland),










—


China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (‘SINOPEC’, China), state owned enterprise,










—


INEOS Sinopec HDPE (Tianjin) Limited (‘INEOS Sinopec HDPE (Tianjin)’, China), newly created joint venture, controlled by INEOS and SINOPEC.




INEOS and SINOPEC will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of INEOS Sinopec HDPE (Tianjin).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


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






—


INEOS is is a privately owned conglomerate that produces a range of chemicals including petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and oil products,










—


SINOPEC is a petroleum and petrochemical group headquartered in Beijing.






3.   

The business activities of INEOS Sinopec HDPE (Tianjin) will be the following: to develop, construct and operate a high-density polyethylene plant in the People’s Republic of China.



4.   
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.


5.   
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.10887 – INEOS / SINOPEC / JV
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 C-635/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Romania) lodged on 11 October 2022 — SC Assofrutti Rom SRL v Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale and Centrul Regional pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale 5 Vest Timişoara
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fruit-growing, market approval, plant propagation, public procurement, seedling








C_2023024EN.01002801.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara (Romania) lodged on 11 October 2022 — SC Assofrutti Rom SRL v Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale and Centrul Regional pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale 5 Vest Timişoara
(Case C-635/22)
(2023/C 24/36)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant and applicant at first instance: SC Assofrutti Rom SRL

Respondents and defendants at first instance: Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale and Centrul Regional pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale 5 Vest Timişoara

Questions referred







1.


Can the provisions of Article 17 of Council Directive 2008/90/EC of 29 September 2008 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production (1) be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from requiring the public procurement procedure to be conducted prior to the marketing of [Conformitas Agraria Communitatis (CAC)] material?










2.


In a situation such as that in the present case, can Article 4(10) of Regulation No 1303/2013, (2) read in conjunction with Article 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the requirement for the public procurement procedure to be conducted as provided for in [Romania’s National Rural Development Programme] 2014-2020 (fifth version)?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 267, p. 8.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10847 – NBH / NLMK DANSTEEL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 409/02
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, flat product, merger control, steel, subsidiary








C_2022409EN.01000201.xml










25.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10847 – NBH / NLMK DANSTEEL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 409/02)
On 11 October 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 32022M10847. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.