do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-387/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, discretionary power, financing method, financing plan, legal basis, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2023314EN.01001402.xml










4.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/14






Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB
(Case T-387/23)
(2023/C 314/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Schelhammer Capital Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.




Further, the applicant claims that the present action for annulment should be joined to Case T-386/23, Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB, on account of their connection and same subject matter, for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.
Case T-386/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, discretionary power, financing method, financing plan, legal basis, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2023314EN.01001401.xml










4.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/14






Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB
(Case T-386/23)
(2023/C 314/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hypo-Bank Burgenland AG (Eisenstadt, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.




Further, the applicant claims that the present action for annulment should be joined to Case T-387/23, Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB, on account of their connection and same subject matter, for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.10920 – AMAZON / IROBOT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 245/04
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: culture industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, electronics industry, household electrical appliance, merger control, provision of services, retail trade, trade intermediary








C_2023245EN.01000401.xml










12.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/4






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.10920 – AMAZON / IROBOT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 245/04)
On 6 July 2023, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.10920 – AMAZON / IROBOT, to the following 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’).
Case C-166/22, Hellfire Massy Residents Association: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 12 — System of strict protection for certain animal species — Article 16 — Derogation — Procedure for granting such a derogation — Right of public participation)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civic engagement, derogation from EU law, national implementing measure, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life








C_2023296EN.01000901.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/9






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-166/22, (1) Hellfire Massy Residents Association)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 12 - System of strict protection for certain animal species - Article 16 - Derogation - Procedure for granting such a derogation - Right of public participation)
(2023/C 296/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hellfire Massy Residents Association

Respondents: An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General

Other parties: South Dublin County Council, An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, Save Our Bride Otters

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 12 and 16 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
must be interpreted as meaning that a piece of national legislation intended to transpose those provisions into national law cannot be regarded as contrary to that directive on the ground that that piece of national legislation does not provide for (i) a development consent procedure which involves a decision by a competent authority determining whether it is necessary to apply for a derogation under Article 16 of the abovementioned directive because of matters identified following the grant of development consent to a project and/or whether surveys are required to that end or (ii) public participation in that derogation procedure.


(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Case C-418/23 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2023 by Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2023 in Case T-794/21, Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, plastics industry, registered trade mark, rubber industry, trade-mark law








C_202400621EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/621


15.1.2024





Appeal brought on 6 July 2023 by Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2023 in Case T-794/21, Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO)
(Case C-418/23 P)
(C/2024/621)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Mouldpro ApS
By order of 29 November 2023, the Vice-President held that Case C-418/23 P is removed from the Register of the Court and that Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/621/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-416/23, Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, competence of the institution, data protection, data-processing law, natural person, personal data, supervisory body








C_202300012EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/12


9.10.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde
(Case C-416/23, Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde)
(C/2023/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde

Other party: FR

Questions referred







1.


Must the concept of ‘requests’ or ‘request’ in Article 57(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation — GDPR) (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also covers ‘complaints’ under Article 77(1) of the GDPR?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Must Article 57(4) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, for requests to be ‘excessive’, it is sufficient that a data subject has merely addressed a certain number of requests (complaints under Article 77(1) of the GDPR) to a supervisory authority within a certain period of time, irrespective of whether the facts are different and/or whether the requests (complaints) concern different controllers, or is an abusive intention on the part of the data subject required in addition to the frequent repetition of requests (complaints)?










3.


Must Article 57(4) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a ‘manifestly unfounded’ or ‘excessive’ request (complaint), the supervisory authority is free to choose whether to charge a reasonable fee based on the administrative costs of processing it or refuse to process it from the outset? If not, which circumstances and criteria must the supervisory authority take into account? In particular, is the supervisory authority obliged to charge a reasonable fee primarily, as a less severe measure, and entitled to refuse to process manifestly unfounded or excessive requests (complaints) only in the event that charging a fee to prevent such requests is futile?






(1)  
            OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/12/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-8/22, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Refugee who has committed a serious crime): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 14(4)(b) — Revocation of refugee status — Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime — Danger to the community — Proportionality test)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, international protection, offence, principle of proportionality, public safety, refugee, right of asylum








C_2023296EN.01000702.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
(Case C-8/22, (1) Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Refugee who has committed a serious crime))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 14(4)(b) - Revocation of refugee status - Third-country national convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime - Danger to the community - Proportionality test)
(2023/C 296/07)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XXX

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted
must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a danger to the community of the Member State in which the third-country national concerned is present cannot be regarded as established by the mere fact that he or she has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime.










2.


Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95
must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the competent authority establishing that the threat which the third-country national concerned represents to one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State in which he or she is present is genuine, present and sufficiently serious and that the revocation of refugee status constitutes a measure that is proportionate to that threat.






(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
Case C-593/22, First Bank: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Scope — Article 1(2) — Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate — Presumption of knowledge of the law)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, financial risk, foreign currency, unfair terms of contract








C_2023296EN.01001301.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA
(Case C-593/22, (1) First Bank)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate - Presumption of knowledge of the law)
(2023/C 296/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: FS and WU

Respondent: First Bank SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is not necessary for the term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier to quote the corresponding mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law verbatim or to refer expressly thereto, but it is sufficient that it is substantively equivalent to that mandatory provision, that is to say that it has the same normative content.










2.


Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier falls within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is irrelevant that the consumer has no knowledge of the fact that that term reflects a mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law.






(1)  OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.
Case T-374/23: Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Volkskreditbank v SRB
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, discretionary power, financing method, financing plan, legal basis, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2023314EN.01001301.xml










4.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/13






Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Volkskreditbank v SRB
(Case T-374/23)
(2023/C 314/15)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkskreditbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 5 July 2023 2023/C 239/01
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023239EN.01000101.xml










6.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 July 2023
(2023/C 239/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0879 




JPY


Japanese yen


157,26 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4482 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85685 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,8295 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9782 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,6455 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,775 




HUF


Hungarian forint


378,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4558 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9515 




TRY


Turkish lira


28,3828 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6329 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4447 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5108 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7590 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4714 




KRW


South Korean won


1 415,29 




ZAR


South African rand


20,3894 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8798 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 380,93 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0620 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,328 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,979 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2933 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,5602 




INR


Indian rupee


89,5175 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-212/21 P and C-223/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — European Investment Bank (EIB) v ClientEarth, European Commission (C-212/21 P), European Commission v Client Earth, European Investment Bank (EIB) (C-223/21 P) (Appeal — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 2(1)(f) — Concept of ‘environmental law’ — Article 2(1)(g) — Concept of ‘administrative act’ — Article 10(1) — Internal review of administrative acts — Resolution of the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant — Rejection of the request for internal review of that resolution as inadmissible — Independence of the EIB in the sphere of its financial operations — Article 271(c) TFEU — Scope)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing, administrative measure, biomass, environmental law, environmental protection, international convention, power plant








C_2023296EN.01000201.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/2






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — European Investment Bank (EIB) v ClientEarth, European Commission (C-212/21 P), European Commission v Client Earth, European Investment Bank (EIB) (C-223/21 P)
(Joined Cases C-212/21 P and C-223/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 2(1)(f) - Concept of ‘environmental law’ - Article 2(1)(g) - Concept of ‘administrative act’ - Article 10(1) - Internal review of administrative acts - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank (EIB) approving the financing of a biomass power generation plant - Rejection of the request for internal review of that resolution as inadmissible - Independence of the EIB in the sphere of its financial operations - Article 271(c) TFEU - Scope)
(2023/C 296/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


(Case C-212/21 P)


Appellant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: K. Carr, G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Bouckaert and G. Schaiko, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth (represented by: S. Abram KC and J. Flynn, KC and H. Leith, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

(Case C-223/21 P)


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth (represented by S. Abram KC and J. Flynn KC and H. Leith, Barrister), European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by K. Carr, G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Bouckaert and G. Schaiko, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.