do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-68/22: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Joro — Earlier national word mark JOKO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023252EN.01004402.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/44






Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)
(Case T-68/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Joro - Earlier national word mark JOKO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 252/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Josef Pichler (San Leonardo in Passiria, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.
Case C-320/23, Bundesarbeitskammer: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2023 — DocLX Travel Events GmbH v Bundesarbeiterkammer
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, discretionary power, package travel, payment, principle of proportionality, purchase price, termination of a contract








C_2023338EN.01000601.xml










25.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2023 — DocLX Travel Events GmbH v Bundesarbeiterkammer
(Case C-320/23, Bundesarbeitskammer)
(2023/C 338/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DocLX Travel Events GmbH

Defendant: Bundesarbeitskammer

Questions referred

The following questions concerning Article 12 of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):






1.


Must the reasonableness, and therefore the amount, of the termination fee be examined by reference to when the organiser’s offer was made, when the package travel contract was concluded, when the traveller made a declaration of termination, when the package was scheduled to end, or some other point in time?










2.


Must the reasonableness, and therefore the amount, of the termination fee be examined on the basis of a commercially and economically correct calculation of that amount or on the basis of other criteria, such as, for example, a standardised estimate based on a percentage of the price of the package?










3.


Must that provision be interpreted as meaning that, where the termination fee agreed in the package travel contract is unreasonably high, the organiser retains his or her right to the payment of a reasonable termination fee (as determined by the answers to Questions 1 and 2) or must that fee be calculated specifically on the basis of the actual disadvantage to the organiser, or does the organiser lose that right altogether?










4.


Is it possible, for the purposes of assessing the reasonableness of the termination fee, in particular where that fee was agreed on a standardised basis, to apply national law, inasmuch as this allows the court to set the amount of a claim at its own discretion if the proceedings are expected to be disproportionately expensive?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).
Case T-289/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Khan v Council
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal basis, natural person, principle of proportionality, territorial dispute, territorial law








C_2023252EN.01007201.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/72






Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Khan v Council
(Case T-289/23)
(2023/C 252/86)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: German Khan (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-283/23, Aven v Council.


(1)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).
Case T-451/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Competition — Data market — Administrative procedure — Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Request for information — Virtual data room — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty — Rights of the defence — Necessity of the information requested — Misuse of powers — Right to privacy — Proportionality — Principle of good administration — Professional secrecy)
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, administrative procedure, dissemination of information, dominant position, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, professional secret, protection of privacy, rights of the defence, social media








C_2023235EN.01003101.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/31






Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission
(Case T-451/20) (1)

(Competition - Data market - Administrative procedure - Article 18(3) and Article 24(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Request for information - Virtual data room - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence - Necessity of the information requested - Misuse of powers - Right to privacy - Proportionality - Principle of good administration - Professional secrecy)
(2023/C 235/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, formerly Facebook Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Jowell KC, D. Bailey, Barrister, J. Aitken, D. Das, S. Malhi, R. Haria, M. Quayle, Solicitors, and T. Oeyen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, C. Urraca Caviedes and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: S. Costanzo, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 3011 final of 4 May 2020 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40628 — Facebook Data-related practices), as amended by Commission Decision C(2020) 9231 final of 11 December 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
Case T-297/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU national, EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2023296EN.01003401.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/34






Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Timchenko v Council
(Case T-297/23)
(2023/C 296/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, L. Burguin, S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova and J. Goffin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022;










—


order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 000, on a provisional basis, in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





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 a manifest error of assessment regarding the grounds relied on by the Council, in particular as regards the designation criteria applied to the applicant and the nature of the measures adopted.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights which the applicant derives from his fundamental status as a European citizen. The applicant claims that the restriction, on the basis of the CFSP, of his freedom of movement within the territory of the European Union, as guaranteed by the Treaties, has no legal basis and is disproportionate and unnecessary.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular infringement of his right to property and his right to respect for his private and family life.
Case T-268/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Italy; aid scheme; COVID-19) (State aid — Italian air transport market — Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence — Decision not to raise any objections — Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, right of establishment, transport authorisation








C_2023252EN.01004001.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/40






Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Italy; aid scheme; COVID-19)
(Case T-268/21) (1)

(State aid - Italian air transport market - Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Obligation to state reasons)
(2023/C 252/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and D. Pérez de Lamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, C. Georgieva and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Neos SpA (Somma, Lombardo, Italy), Blue panorama airlines SpA (Somma, Lombardo), Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee (Villafranca de Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and A. Cogoni, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence;










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC;










3.


Orders Neos SpA, Blue panorama airlines SpA and Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 23 May 2023 2023/C 182/02
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023182EN.01000201.xml










24.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 May 2023
(2023/C 182/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0779 




JPY


Japanese yen


149,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4475 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86993 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,4494 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9718 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7920 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,681 




HUF


Hungarian forint


376,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5018 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9720 




TRY


Turkish lira


21,3993 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6282 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4571 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4480 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7246 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4527 




KRW


South Korean won


1 422,75 




ZAR


South African rand


20,7920 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6039 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 043,23 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9260 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,052 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,435 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3649 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,3225 




INR


Indian rupee


89,2675 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-579/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Gusachenka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freedom of expression, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2023235EN.01003302.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/33






Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Gusachenka v Council
(Case T-579/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2023/C 235/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Siarhei Gusachenka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021, implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Siarhei Gusachenka to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Case T-580/21: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Haidukevich v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Member of Parliament, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2023235EN.01003401.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/34






Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Haidukevich v Council
(Case T-580/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2023/C 235/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aleh Haidukevich (Semkino, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, E. d’Ursel and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021, implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Aleh Haidukevich to bear, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Case C-322/23, Lufoni: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2023 — ED v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)
Date: 2023-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, full-time employment, social security, teacher, temporary employment, working conditions








C_2023304EN.01000901.xml










28.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2023 — ED v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)
(Case C-322/23, Lufoni (1))
(2023/C 304/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ED

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

Questions referred







1.


Does clause 4 (of the Framework Agreement) of Directive 99/70 (2) preclude national legislation such as Articles 485 and 489 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, Article 11(14) of Law No 124/99 and Article 4(3) of Presidential Decree No 399/88, which provide for the length of service prior to becoming a permanent member of staff, taking into account the aforementioned Article 11(14), to be counted in full only for the first four years and, for the subsequent years, at a rate of two thirds for legal and salary purposes and of the remaining one-third solely for salary purposes and after reaching a certain length of service as provided for by Article 4(3) of Presidential Decree No 399/88?










2.


In any event, for the purposes of assessing whether there is discrimination under clause 4 (of the Framework Agreement) of Directive 99/70, must the national court take account only of the length of service prior to becoming a permanent member of staff recognised at the time of admittance to the permanent staff, or, on the contrary, must it take account of the entire body of rules concerning the treatment of that length of service and thus also of the rules which provide, in periods following admittance to the permanent staff, for full recovery of length of service for salary purposes only?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).