do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-438/24: Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Bayerische Landesbank v SRB
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, bank resolution, case-law (EU), company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, infringement of EU law, official language








C_202405842EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5842


7.10.2024






Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Bayerische Landesbank v SRB


(Case T-438/24)

(C/2024/5842)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, 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 11 June 2024 on the re-adoption of the decision on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund concerning the institutions mentioned in Annex I to that decision (SRB/ES/2024/20), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court should consider that the contested decision is legally non-existent due to the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and that the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law, which are identical to those raised in Case T-437/24, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5842/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-443/24: Action brought on 23 August 2024 – ECE Group v EUIPO – ECE Logistics (ECE LOGISTICS)
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, consultancy, consumer information, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law, transport company, vehicle rental








C_202405847EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5847


7.10.2024






Action brought on 23 August 2024 – ECE Group v EUIPO – ECE Logistics (ECE LOGISTICS)


(Case T-443/24)

(C/2024/5847)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: ECE Group GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, M. Tillwich, P. Funke and R. Briske, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ECE Logistics sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Zielona Góra, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ECE LOGISTICS – EU trade mark No 13 698 865
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2024 in Case R 1948/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and amend it to the effect that the application for cancellation is granted in its entirety and trade mark No 13 698 865 is cancelled in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





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 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5847/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-440/24: Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, bank resolution, case-law (EU), company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, infringement of EU law, official language








C_202405844EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5844


7.10.2024






Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB


(Case T-440/24)

(C/2024/5844)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, 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 11 June 2024 on the re-adoption of the decision on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund concerning the institutions mentioned in Annex I to that decision (SRB/ES/2024/20), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court should consider that the contested decision is legally non-existent due to the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and that the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law, which are identical to those raised in Case T-437/24, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5844/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11510 – ACS / TK / YORIZON)
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, computer centre, computer equipment, data processing, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, project management, provision of services, transport infrastructure








C_202405350EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5350


30.8.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11510 – ACS / TK / YORIZON)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/5350)

On 23 August 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 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 32024M11510. 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/2024/5350/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-444/24: Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Montres Tudor v EUIPO (1926)
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202405848EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5848


7.10.2024






Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Montres Tudor v EUIPO (1926)


(Case T-444/24)

(C/2024/5848)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Montres Tudor SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mesa Sánchez and I. Pascual de Quinto Santos-Suárez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘1926’ – Application for registration No 1 745 423

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2024 in Case R 600/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Inconsistency as regards the goods in respect of which the contested international registration is regarded as distinctive.










—


The trade mark applied for does not describe the characteristics of the goods claimed. Inapplicability of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.










—


The contested international registration is inherently distinctive. Inapplicability of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5848/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.107221
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, aid to undertakings, control of State aid








C_202405189EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5189


23.8.2024






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.107221
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/5189)








Date of adoption of the decision


22.7.2024




Aid number


SA.107221




Member State


United Kingdom




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Enterprise Investment Scheme, Venture Capital Trusts (EIS/VCT)




Legal basis


Income Tax Act (ITA) 2007 and Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Risk finance




Form of aid


Provision of risk finance




Budget


Overall budget: 20 000 000  GBP




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 5.4.2035




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







HM Treasury




1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5189/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-436/24: Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Löwen Entertainment v EUIPO – Wazdan Holding (Magic Crown)
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, automatic game, computer equipment, electronic game, game of chance, gaming establishment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_202405840EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5840


7.10.2024






Action brought on 23 August 2024 – Löwen Entertainment v EUIPO – Wazdan Holding (Magic Crown)


(Case T-436/24)

(C/2024/5840)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Löwen Entertainment GmbH (Bingen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wazdan Holding LTD (Larnaca, Cyprus)

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 Magic Crown – Application for registration No 18 665 122
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2024 in Case R 2415/2023-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and – in case it intervenes in writing – the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


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






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5840/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 22 August 2024
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202404813EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4813


23.8.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            22 August 2024
         
(C/2024/4813)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1135 




JPY


Japanese yen


162,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4619 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84943 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,3920 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9490 




ISK


Iceland króna


152,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7685 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,092 




HUF


Hungarian forint


394,10 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2815 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9764 




TRY


Turkish lira


37,7855 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6550 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5130 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6814 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8107 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4568 




KRW


South Korean won


1 490,74 




ZAR


South African rand


20,0237 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9491 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 405,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8749 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,723 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,332 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1538 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6175 




INR


Indian rupee


93,4780 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4813/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-439/24: Action brought on 23 August 2024 – DZ Bank v SRB
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, bank resolution, case-law (EU), company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, infringement of EU law, official language








C_202405843EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5843


7.10.2024






Action brought on 23 August 2024 – DZ Bank v SRB


(Case T-439/24)

(C/2024/5843)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, 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 11 June 2024 on the re-adoption of the decision on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund concerning the institutions mentioned in Annex I to that decision (SRB/ES/2024/20), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court should consider that the contested decision is legally non-existent due to the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and that the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law, which are identical to those raised in Case T-437/24, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5843/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-568/24, Sof Medica: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 August 2024 – Sof Medica S.A. v Spitalul Clinic Județean de Urgență Cluj-Napoca
Date: 2024-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, public procurement, technical specification, tendering








C_202500374EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/374


27.1.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 August 2024 – Sof Medica S.A. v Spitalul Clinic Județean de Urgență Cluj-Napoca


(Case C-568/24, Sof Medica)

(C/2025/374)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant and applicant at first instance: Sof Medica S.A.

Respondent and defendant at first instance: Spitalul Clinic Județean de Urgență Cluj-Napoca

Questions referred







1.


Must the principle of transparency, referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, in conjunction with Articles 49 and 2(1)(13) of Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer on the basis of certain technical specifications, justified by ‘objective need’, where that need is defined by the contracting authority only after publication of the contract notice and the procurement documents?










2.


May the provisions of Article 42(1), (3)(b) and (4) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the restrictive nature of the technical specifications, which requires the words ‘or equivalent’ in the procurement documentation, is also carried out by means of a cumulative analysis of all the requirements of the procurement documentation?










3.


If the answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative, can the principle of equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination, referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the restrictive nature of the technical specifications must be linked to the contracting authority’s ‘objective need’ prior to the publication of the contract notice and the procurement documentation?






(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/374/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)