do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-284/23, Haus Jacobus: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2023 — TC v Firma Haus Jacobus Alten- und Altenpflegeheim gGmbH
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, legal action, limitation of legal proceedings, motherhood, unfair dismissal








C_2023286EN.01001802.xml










14.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2023 — TC v Firma Haus Jacobus Alten- und Altenpflegeheim gGmbH
(Case C-284/23, Haus Jacobus)
(2023/C 286/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TC

Defendant: Firma Haus Jacobus Alten- und Altenpflegeheim gGmbH

Question referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested under Article 267 TFEU to give a preliminary ruling on the question whether the German national provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on protection against dismissal), according to which a woman who, as a pregnant woman, enjoys special protection against dismissal must also mandatorily bring an action within the time limits laid down in those provisions in order to retain that protection, are compatible with Directive 92/85/EEC. (1)



(1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).
Case T-229/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Bonami.CZ v EUIPO — Roval Print (bonami)
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, decorative item, electronic commerce, furniture industry, household article, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2023216EN.01005501.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/55






Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Bonami.CZ v EUIPO — Roval Print (bonami)
(Case T-229/23)
(2023/C 216/72)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bonami.CZ, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M.-G. Marinescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Roval Print SRL (Galati, Romania)

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 trade mark bonami in yellow, red, pink, purple, blue, dark green and light green — Application for registration No 18 024 693

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2023 in Case R 1292/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the opposition entirely;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of procedural requirements related to the (online) substantiation of the opposition;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 April 2023 2023/C 154/04
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023154EN.01000401.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 April 2023
(2023/C 154/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0981 




JPY


Japanese yen


149,35 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4538 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88050 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,3515 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9839 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7910 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,502 




HUF


Hungarian forint


373,78 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5815 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9301 




TRY


Turkish lira


21,3608 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6664 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4981 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6199 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7864 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4679 




KRW


South Korean won


1 470,89 




ZAR


South African rand


20,1558 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5979 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 111,90 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8981 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,923 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,467 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4872 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,8182 




INR


Indian rupee


89,8555 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11055 – EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE)
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, economic concentration, energy efficiency, investment, investment company, merger control, waste management








C_202400785EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/785


10.1.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11055 – EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/785)

On 2 May 2023, 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 32023M11055. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/785/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-227/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Mylan Ireland v Commission
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, competence of the institution, drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval, ownership, rights of the defence








C_2023223EN.01003701.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/37






Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Mylan Ireland v Commission
(Case T-227/23)
(2023/C 223/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mylan Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and M. Van Nieuwenborgh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the Commission Decision embedded in its letter of 17 March 2023 [ref. SANTE.DDG1.B.5/AL/mmc (2023) 2914698], as well as any later decisions to the extent they perpetuate and/or replace that decision, including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence and misuse of power by the above-mentioned Commission Decision of 17 March 2023 (‘the contested decision’) to amend and/or to withdraw the applicant’s granted marketing authorization.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirement, as the contested decision lacks a legal basis and infringed the applicant’s right to be heard pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application:






—


the contested decision misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the Court of Justice’s inter partes judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213), and disregards the review of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use;










—


the contested decision infringes the rights of defence and to a fair trial pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as several cases to which the applicant is a party are currently pending (T-730/20, T-279/22 and T-268/22);










—


the contested decision infringes legal certainty;










—


the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations, including the numerous obligations with public authorities, producers, suppliers, transport companies and hospitals, for the procurement of generic dimethyl fumarate products, and patients;










—


the contested decision violates the right to property laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case T-228/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval, ownership, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2023235EN.01005101.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/51






Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission
(Case T-228/23)
(2023/C 235/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck, M. Van Nieuwenborgh and N. Dumont lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the Commission Decision embedded in its letter of 17 March 2023 [ref. SANTE.DDG1.B.5/AL/mmc (2023) 2915860], as well as any later decisions to the extent they perpetuate and/or replace that decision, including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence and misuse of power by the above-mentioned Commission Decision of 17 March 2023 (‘the contested decision’) to amend and/or to withdraw the applicant’s granted marketing authorization.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirement, as the contested decision lacks a legal basis and infringed the applicant’s right to be heard pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application:






—


the contested decision misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the Court of Justice’s inter partes judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213), and disregards the review of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use;










—


the contested decision infringes the rights of defence and to a fair trial pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


the contested decision infringes legal certainty;










—


the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations, including the numerous obligations with its clients, public authorities, wholesalers, transport companies, and hospitals, for the sale and distribution of generic dimethyl fumarate products, and patients;










—


the contested decision violates the right to property laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case T-225/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Debonair Trading Internacional v EUIPO — Lea Nature Services (LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC)
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cleaning industry, cosmetic product, dietary product, food supplement, pesticide, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023216EN.01005401.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/54






Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Debonair Trading Internacional v EUIPO — Lea Nature Services (LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC)
(Case T-225/23)
(2023/C 216/71)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J.-P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC — Application for registration No 17 592 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2023 in Case R 206/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul all cost orders made against the applicant by EUIPO and to order the latter to bear the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-283/23, Marhon: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 May 2023 — FB, JL v Procureur du Roi près du Tribunal de Première Instance d’Eupen
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, harmonisation of standards, large vehicle, market approval, measuring equipment, road transport, weight and size








C_2023278EN.01001602.xml










7.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 May 2023 — FB, JL v Procureur du Roi près du Tribunal de Première Instance d’Eupen
(Case C-283/23, Marhon (1))
(2023/C 278/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: FB, JL

Defendant: Procureur du Roi près du Tribunal de Première Instance d’Eupen

Question referred

Are Articles 1, 2(3) and 3 of Directive 2014/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of non-automatic weighing instruments (2) applicable to the use, by judicial or police authorities, of non-automatic weighing instruments for the purposes of determining the mass of vehicles for the application of national legislation or regulations, which are subject to criminal penalties, and which — such as (i) Articles 41(3)(1) and 43(3)(1) of the Law of 15 July 2013 on road haulage and implementing Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (3) and implementing Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (4) and (ii) Articles 21, first paragraph, point 5 and 35(4) of the Royal Decree of 22 May 2014 on road haulage — prohibit the use on the road of vehicles whose measured mass exceeds the maximum authorised mass?


(1)  The name of this case is fictitious. It is not the name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 96, p 107.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.

(4)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72.
Case T-226/23: Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval, ownership, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2023235EN.01005001.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/50






Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission
(Case T-226/23)
(2023/C 235/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck, M. Van Nieuwenborgh and N. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the Commission Decision embedded in its letter of 17 March 2023 [ref. SANTE.DDG1.B.5/AL/mmc (2023) 2915367], as well as any later decisions to the extent they perpetuate and/or replace that decision, including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence and misuse of power by the above-mentioned Commission Decision of 17 March 2023 (‘the contested decision’) to amend and/or to withdraw the applicant’s granted marketing authorization.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirement, as the contested decision lacks a legal basis and infringed the applicant’s right to be heard pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application:






—


the contested decision misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the Court of Justice’s inter partes judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213), and disregards the review of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use;










—


the contested decision infringes the rights of defence and to a fair trial pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


the contested decision infringes legal certainty;










—


the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations, including the numerous obligations with public authorities, producers, suppliers, transport companies and hospitals, for the procurement of generic dimethyl fumarate products, and patients;










—


the contested decision violates the right to property laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10917 – SCHÜCO / METALLINVEST / RSFB / AWB) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 227/02
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: alloy, aluminium, building industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry, plastics, steel








C_2023227EN.01000201.xml










29.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10917 – SCHÜCO / METALLINVEST / RSFB / AWB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 227/02)
On 2 May 2023, 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 German language 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M10917. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2023/C 154/08
Date: 2023-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, electric vehicle, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2023154EN.01004601.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/46






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2023/C 154/08)

1.   

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.


2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.








4.


This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Electric bicycles


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18. 1.2019, p. 108)


19.1.2024










(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.