do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-695/22, Fondee: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze – Czech Republic) – Fondee a.s. v Česká národní banka (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Markets in financial instruments – Directive 2014/65/EU – Article 3 – Exemption from the application of Directive 2014/65/EU – Exempted investment intermediary – Legislation of a Member State prohibiting that intermediary from transmitting clients’ orders to an investment firm established in another Member State)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European passport, financial instrument, financial occupation, freedom to provide services, investment, provision of services, securities








C_202403882EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3882


1.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze – Czech Republic) – Fondee a.s. v Česká národní banka


(Case C-695/22,
                (1)
Fondee)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Markets in financial instruments - Directive 2014/65/EU - Article 3 - Exemption from the application of Directive 2014/65/EU - Exempted investment intermediary - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting that intermediary from transmitting clients’ orders to an investment firm established in another Member State)
(C/2024/3882)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fondee a.s.

Defendant: Česká národní banka

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c)(i) of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU
must be interpreted as meaning that
persons exempted by a Member State from the application of that directive are authorised to transmit, with a view to their execution, orders from clients residing or established in that Member State to investment firms that are established in another Member State and are authorised to that end, under that directive, by the competent authority of that other Member State, and, accordingly, as precluding national legislation prohibiting such transmission.


(1)  
            OJ C 35, 30.1.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3882/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-673/22, INSS (Leave for a mother in a single-parent family): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social – Sevilla – Spain) – CCC v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive (EU) 2019/1158 – Balance between working life and private life of parents – Single-parent family – Equal treatment with two-parent families – Extension of maternity leave – Article 5 – Parental leave – Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, maternity leave, one-parent family, parental leave, single parent, work-life balance








C_202403881EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3881


1.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social – Sevilla – Spain) – CCC v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)


Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)


(Case C-673/22,
                (1)
INSS (Leave for a mother in a single-parent family))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive (EU) 2019/1158 - Balance between working life and private life of parents - Single-parent family - Equal treatment with two-parent families - Extension of maternity leave - Article 5 - Parental leave - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(C/2024/3881)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social – Sevilla

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CCC

Defendants: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Sevilla (Social Court No 1, Seville, Spain), by decision of 28 September 2022, is inadmissible.


(1)  
            OJ C 112, 27.3.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3881/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 15 May 2024
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202402531EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2531


16.5.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            15 May 2024
         
(C/2024/2531)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0832 




JPY


Japanese yen


168,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4617 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85840 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,6751 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9800 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,6490 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,766 




HUF


Hungarian forint


386,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2690 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9758 




TRY


Turkish lira


34,9765 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6308 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4763 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4578 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7860 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4609 




KRW


South Korean won


1 471,93 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9073 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8212 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 340,14 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0986 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,284 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


39,580 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5827 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,2710 




INR


Indian rupee


90,4445 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2531/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-421/23: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2024 – Versobank v ECB (Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB – Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation – Failure to comply with procedural requirements – Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, credit institution, damages, financial supervision, trade licence








C_202403917EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3917


1.7.2024






Order of the General Court of 16 May 2024 – Versobank v ECB


(Case T-421/23)
                (1)

(Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
(C/2024/3917)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Versobank AS (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, A. Pizzolla and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage it claims to have suffered as a result of, first, the adoption of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-EE2 WHD-2017-0012 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 17 July 2018 withdrawing its authorisation as a credit institution and, secondly, the ECB’s conduct in connection with that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union.










3.


Versobank AS shall pay the costs, except those relating to the application to intervene.










4.


The Council shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/23, 9.10.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3917/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Decision No 2/2024 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of 16 May 2024 adding a newly adopted Union act to Annex 2 to the Windsor Framework [2024/2134]
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: EU–United Kingdom Joint Committee
Subjects: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), consumer information, domestic animal, labelling, pet food, protocol to an agreement, quality label, revision of an agreement, withdrawal from the EU








L_202402134EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2024/2134


7.8.2024







            DECISION No 2/2024 OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED BY THE AGREEMENT ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
         
of 16 May 2024
         
adding a newly adopted Union act to Annex 2 to the Windsor Framework [2024/2134]


THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1) (‘the Withdrawal Agreement’), and in particular Article 13(4) of the Windsor Framework (2),

Whereas:







(1)


Article 13(4) of the Windsor Framework empowers the Joint Committee established under Article 164(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement (‘the Joint Committee’) to adopt decisions adding newly adopted Union acts falling within the scope of the Windsor Framework to the relevant Annexes to the Windsor Framework.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 166(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, the decisions adopted by the Joint Committee are binding on the Union and the United Kingdom. The Union and the United Kingdom are to implement such decisions, which have the same legal effect as the Withdrawal Agreement.












(3)


A newly adopted Union act should be added to Annex 2 to the Windsor Framework,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Regulation (EU) 2023/2419 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the labelling of organic pet food (3) shall be added to Annex 2 to the Windsor Framework under point 34 ‘Feed – products and hygiene’.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 16 May 2024.


For the Joint Committee


The Co-chairs

Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ
            


David CAMERON
            





(1)  
            OJ EU L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7.

(2)  Joint Declaration No 1/2023 of the Union and the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of 24 March 2023 (OJ EU L 102, 17.4.2023, p. 87).

(3)  
            OJ EU L, 2023/2419, 27.10.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2419/oj.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/2134/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-362/24 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2024 by MHCS against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2024 in Case T-652/22, Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO – MHCS (Shade of the Colour Orange)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, champagne, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202500521EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/521


3.2.2025






Appeal brought on 16 May 2024 by MHCS against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2024 in Case T-652/22, Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO – MHCS (Shade of the Colour Orange)


(Case C-362/24 P)

(C/2025/521)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: MHCS (represented by: O. Vrins, advocaat, B. Raus and N. Clarembeaux, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
By order of 2 October 2024, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that MHCS should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/521/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-405/23, Touristic Aviation Services: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln - Germany) – Touristic Aviation Services Limited v Flightright GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delay of flights – Article 5(3) – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Extraordinary circumstances – Shortage of staff of the airport operator providing baggage loading services)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, carriage of passengers, carrier, civil aviation, crew, indemnification








C_202403887EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3887


1.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln - Germany) – Touristic Aviation Services Limited v Flightright GmbH


(Case C-405/23,
                (1)
Touristic Aviation Services)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Shortage of staff of the airport operator providing baggage loading services)
(C/2024/3887)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Touristic Aviation Services Limited

Respondent: Flightright GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,
must be interpreted as meaning that
the fact of there being an insufficient number of staff of the airport operator responsible for the operations of loading baggage onto planes may constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision. However, in order to be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers provided for in Article 7 of that regulation, the air carrier whose flight has experienced a long delay on account of such an extraordinary circumstance is required to show that that circumstance could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that it adopted measures appropriate to the situation to avoid the consequences thereof.


(1)  
            OJ C 329, 18.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3887/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-260/24: Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, broadcasting, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic commerce, mobile application, music, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_202403924EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3924


1.7.2024






Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission


(Case T-260/24)

(C/2024/3924)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States), Apple Distribution International Ltd (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: B. Meyring, A. Wachsmann, W. Leslie, L. Gam, C. Riis-Madsen, S. Frank, lawyers, and D. Beard, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Decision C(2024) 1307 final of 4 March 2024 in Case AT.40437– Apple – App Store Practices (music streaming);
or, in the alternative,










—


annul in part or in full Article 3 of the contested decision; and / or










—


annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;
and, in any event,










—


order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in its findings of market definition and dominance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in finding the applicants’ anti-steering provisions abusive.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision errs in imposing a fine and in calculating that fine.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a remedy which is disproportionate and for which it fails to state reasons.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the applicants’ rights of defence.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3924/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10921 – AGRAVIS RAIFFEISEN / DANISH AGRO / NORDIC SEED GERMANY)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural machinery, agricultural production, agricultural trade, animal production, crop production, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, plant breeding, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_202403815EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3815


13.6.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10921 – AGRAVIS RAIFFEISEN / DANISH AGRO / NORDIC SEED GERMANY)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/3815)

On 16 May 2024, 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 (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 32024M10921. 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/2024/3815/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-259/24: Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Kudsi Alattar v EUIPO – Medelhavet Gross (Chamain)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical plant, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_202403923EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3923


1.7.2024






Action brought on 16 May 2024 – Kudsi Alattar v EUIPO – Medelhavet Gross (Chamain)


(Case T-259/24)

(C/2024/3923)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tarek Kudsi Alattar (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez and Y. Hernández Viñes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medelhavet Gross AB (Laholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Chamain – European Union trade mark No 18 329 240

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2024 in joined cases R 1258/2023-2 and R 1588/2023-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1258/2023-2;










—


dismiss in part the cancellation applicant’s appeal R 1588/2023-2 and maintain the contested decision to the extent that the trade mark at issue remains valid for the following goods:










—


Class 5: dietetic food and substances adapted for medical use; dietary supplements for humans;










—


Class 31: fresh herbs;










—


order the EUIPO (and if it intervenes, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal) to bear its costs and pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


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






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3923/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-355/24 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2024 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 06/03/2024 in Case T-647/22, Puma v EUIPO – Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoe)
Date: 2024-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_202406401EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6401


4.11.2024






Appeal brought on 16 May 2024 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 06/03/2024 in Case T-647/22, Puma v EUIPO – Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoe)


(Case C-355/24 P)

(C/2024/6401)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Puma SE (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst BV
By order of 24 September 2024, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Puma SE should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6401/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)