House prices have fallen by 1.7% in the euro area compared to the previous year and by 1.1% in the European Union in the second quarter of 2023, according to Eurostat.
The trend in the European property market is about to change: Houses are cheaper on average than last year, but there’s a definite shift in the quarterly numbers, hinting that the decrease might not last long.European house prices fell for the first-time year-on-year since 2014 in the second quarter of 2023, according to the latest numbers from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.The House Price Index fell by 1.7% in the euro area and by 1.1% in the EU between April and June, compared with the same quarter of the previous year. These numbers follow an annual increase of 0.4% and 0.8% in the euro area and EU respectively, detected in the first three months of the year.
In a quarterly comparison however, prices started to increase: By 0.1% in the euro area and by 0.3% in the EU between April and June 2023.Since the last three months of 2022, house prices fell for two quarters in a row: -1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2022 and -0.7% in the first three months of this year, before experiencing a small rise in the second quarter of 2023.
Nine EU countries recorded lower prices in the second quarter of 2023 than in the previous year, but in the other 17 member states, house prices keep mounting. Germany recorded the sharpest annual decrease over the quarter, at -9.9%, followed by Denmark at -7.6% and Sweden at -6.8%. Croatia registered the largest increase at +13.7%, followed by Bulgaria at +10.7% and Lithuania at +9.4%.
In the second quarter of 2023, rents in the EU increased by 0.7% compared to the previous three months. Rents were 3% more expensive on average compared to the same period of the previous year. The numbers show a steadily increasing rate quarter by quarter. In the last three months of 2022 rents rose by 2.5% annually, and in the first three months of 2023, they surged by 2.9%. Between 2010 and the second quarter of 2023, house prices increased by 46% and rents by 21% in the EU, states Eurostat.
When comparing the second quarter of 2023 with 2010, house prices increased more than rents in 20 out of the 27 EU countries. House prices more than doubled in Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechia, Luxembourg and Austria but a slight decrease was detected in Greece, Italy and Cyprus.
For rents, prices increased in 26 EU countries with the highest rises in Estonia (+208%) and Lithuania (+168%). The only decrease in rent prices was recorded in Greece (-21%).
The cost of homes within the eurozone fell by 1.1% during the last three month of 2023. However, within the EU overall, prices were slightly higher.
One of the countries hardest hit by a fall in property prices was Luxembourg where house prices slumped 14.4%, following a 13.9% fall in the preceding three months.
Within the eurozone, average house prices were down by 1.1% in the last three months of 2023 compared with the year before, according to the House Price Index, an indicator by Eurostat.
House prices for the European Union as a whole showed a slight climb of 0.2% increase for the year.
The results show that average prices are not dropping as much as before – the same index was down 2.2% and 1.1% in the eurozone and the EU respectively for the third quarter of last year.
The biggest drop in prices was detected in Luxembourg
Luxembourg property prices fell to their lowest level since the end of 2020. The drop was put down to a combination of high interest rates and rental investors losing their appetite. There was a significant decline in housing market transactions. These, by the end of 2023, were effectively half the number of deals done in 2022.
Eight countries in Europe reported falling house prices for the final three months of 2023, although less dramatic than Luxembourg’s. Prices in Germany dropped by 7.1% while Finland saw a fall of 4.4%.
The highest property price rises were recorded in Poland, where prices jumped 13%. Bulgaria and Croatia were next in line, with property prices showing a climb of 10.1% and 9.5% respectively.
Compared with the previous three months ending in September, prices were down in 11 countries in total. France saw a drop of 2.7%, while Latvia’s prices slid 2.5%. News from Italy was more cheerful as prices remained steady.
The highest increases during that period were recorded in Poland, up 4.8%, Croatia, up 3.4% and Ireland, which saw a 3% rise.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 10, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Euro Manganese Inc. (TSX-V and ASX: EMN; OTCQX: EUMNF; Frankfurt: E06) (the “Company”) today announced that its Chvaletice Manganese Project (“Chvaletice” or the “Project”) is formally listed1 as under appraisal for debt financing with the European Investment Bank (“EIB”). Funding from the EIB would complement a broader funding package to support the development of the Company’s high-purity battery-grade manganese plant in the Czech Republic.
Highlights
-
Euro Manganese’s Chvaletice Project has progressed to the formal appraisal stage for debt financing with the EIB in what was a significant milestone in securing funds for the Czech Republic’s high-purity manganese production plant
-
Chvaletice is the European Union’s (“EU”) sole large manganese reserve, positioning Euro Manganese as a key supplier of local, recycled, ESG compliant high-purity manganese for the European EV market
-
Recognised by the EU as both a Strategic and Critical Raw Material source, the Chvaletice Project is set to boost EU resilience in battery materials while delivering environmental benefits through historical tailings remediation
-
Debt financing from the EIB supports the aims of the inter-governmental Minerals Security Partnership (“MSP”), which includes 13 countries and the EU, that has endorsed the Chvaletice Project as a key initiative
Dr. Matthew James, President & CEO of Euro Manganese, commented:
“The advancement of our Chvaletice Manganese Project to a formal under appraisal level signals the EIB’s commitment to supporting sustainable opportunities in the battery supply chain. Chvaletice remains the only sizable proven and probable reserve of manganese in the European Union and through the Project, Euro Manganese will be uniquely positioned to provide a secure, traceable, and responsibly produced supply of high-purity manganese products to the European electric vehicle market. With the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (“EBRD”) already as a key shareholder, today’s announcement is another key step towards achieving project funding. We look forward to obtaining EIB’s continued support for this strategic project.”
The EIB notes: “The European Commission has identified both battery-grade manganese and manganese as ‘Strategic Raw Material’ and “Critical Raw Material”, being highly relevant not only for the green and digital transitions, but also for strategic technologies and sectors. The Chvaletice Manganese Project represents an important circular economy-based source of high purity manganese and will supply the battery value chain with a key raw material that is largely imported, increasing the EU’s resilience. The Project will also include multiple environmental benefits from the remediation of the historic tailings area, particularly in terms of soil quality and freshwater quality.”
In October 2023, the Chvaletice Project was named as a project to be supported under the inter-governmental MSP, a collection of 13 countries and the European Union, representing over 50 percent of global GDP. The MSP aims to catalyze public and private sector investment to build diverse, secure and responsible critical mineral supply chains globally.
About Euro Manganese
Euro Manganese is a battery materials company focused on becoming a leading producer of high-purity manganese for the electric vehicle industry. The Company is advancing development of the Chvaletice Manganese Project in the Czech Republic and pursuing an opportunity to produce battery-grade manganese products in Bécancour, Québec.
The Chvaletice Project is a unique waste-to-value recycling and remediation opportunity involving reprocessing old tailings from a decommissioned mine. It is also the only sizable resource of manganese in the European Union, strategically positioning the Company to provide battery supply chains with critical raw materials to support the global shift to a circular, low-carbon economy.
Euro Manganese is dual listed on the TSX.V and the ASX, and is also traded on the OTCQX.
Authorized for release by the CEO of Euro Manganese Inc.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) or the ASX accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Enquiries
Dr. Matthew James
President & CEO
+44 (0)747 229 6688
LodeRock Advisors
Neil Weber
Investor and Media Relations – North America
+1 (647) 222-0574
neil.weber@loderockadvisors.com
Jane Morgan Management
Jane Morgan
Investor and Media Relations – Australia
+61 (0) 405 555 618
jm@janemorganmanagement.com.au
Company Address: #709 -700 West Pender St., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 1G8
Website: www.mn25.ca
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this news release constitute “forward-looking statements” or “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Such statements and information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of the Company, its Chvaletice Project, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. Such statements can be identified by the use of words such as “may”, “would”, “could”, “will”, “intend”, “expect”, “believe”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “scheduled”, “forecast”, “predict” and other similar terminology, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved.
Such forward-looking information or statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the Company’s intentions regarding the development and advancement of the Chvaletice Project in the Czech Republic, the ability of the Company to secure funding from EIB or any broader funding package to finance the Project, continuing support from EIB, continuing support from MSP and its partners, anticipated environmental benefits from the Project, and that the Project represents an important circular economy-based source of high purity manganese and will supply the battery value chain with a key raw material.
Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information or statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements and, even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on, the Company.
All forward-looking statements are made based on the Company’s current beliefs including various assumptions made by the Company, including that: the Company can achieve its goals; that the political and community environment in which the Company operates in will continue to support the development and operation of the Company’s projects; and assumptions related to the factors set out herein. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, risks and uncertainties related to the availability of acceptable financing; the ability to meet conditions of secured financing and risks related to security; the ability to obtain, amend, or maintain necessary licenses, or permits; risks related to acquisition of surface rights; changes in laws or regulations; and regulation by various governmental agencies. For a further discussion of risks relevant to the Company, see “Risk Factors” in the Company’s annual information form for the year ended September 30, 2023, available on the Company’s SEDAR profile at www.sedarplus.ca
Although the forward-looking statements contained in this news release are based upon what management of the Company believes are reasonable assumptions, the Company cannot assure investors that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release and are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. Subject to applicable securities laws, the Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this news release.
____________________________________
1 https://www.eib.org/en/projects/pipelines/all/20220372
The range of consultancy services in the field of intellectual property is quite wide. Lawsuits, appeals before registry offices, application services, monitoring services, licensing procedures and a variety of other services including but not limited to these are provided to clients by intellectual property consultancy firms or law firms specialized in this field.
Many companies operating in this field have specialized their services and several of them have limited their services and operate only as a law firm, several as a monitoring-research bureau, several as companies serving only in certain fields (patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.), and others only in application-administrative procedures. Of course, there are also firms which provide all of these services on their own, but this should in general be considered as an exceptional form of service.
When firms that provide intellectual property consultancy services want to register their own trademarks, they apply under the Class 45 of the Nicé classification. The following data taken from TmClass database of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) show that all intellectual property services with the exceptions of education (Class 41) and financial valuation of intellectual property rights (Class 36) are included in Class 45. (https://euipo.europa.eu/ec2/search/find?language=en&text=intellectual+property&niceClass=&size =25&page=1&harmonised=true&searchMode=WORDSPREFIX&sortBy=relevance) In addition to this, as it can be seen in the last image, intellectual property related services in Class 45 are under the general title of legal services at the EUIPO Taxonomy structure. In other words, EUIPO considers intellectual property consultancy services as a part of legal services, and services such as intellectual property licensing services, intellectual property monitoring services, intellectual property management services, intellectual property investigation services and intellectual property protection services are considered to be a part of this main title.
Within the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office implementation, the classes of Nicé classification are divided into groups that contain the same type of goods and services. The purpose of the groups is to gather the same type (very similar) of goods or services under the same title and these groups are used only in the ex-officio similarity examination. However, in case of oppositions, the Office performs a broader examination for similar goods or services and is not limited with these groups which contain only the same type of goods or services.
One of the groups included in Class 45 is “Legal services (including consultancy services on industrial and intellectual property rights)” as of 2020 within Turkish implementation. (https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TURKPATENT/commonContent/MClassification/) In other words, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office considers consultancy services in the field of intellectual property as a service within the general title of legal services and as the same type of service.
Nevertheless; when a new application involving legal services is refused due to a trademark registered for intellectual property consultancy (or vice versa), applicants often argue that services in the field of intellectual property and legal services, for example services of a lawyer, are not the same type of services, and that there is a difference between services in terms of purpose and service provider.
The arguments that are stated are based on the arguments that lawyering services are generally provided by lawyers or law firms, however, intellectual property services are a separate field of expertise, services provided in this field are not legal services, and mediating services for the application and protection before the administration cannot be considered as legal services, besides most of the service providers are not lawyers or legal professionals. In this context, the fact that the Turkish registration authority considers intellectual property consultancy services as a part of the general title of legal services comes up as an issue that is frequently criticized and underlined in appeals.
The judgement, which is the subject matter of this article; will convey to our readers how the same issue has been evaluated by EUIPO and the Court of Justice of the European Union and explain the EU perspective on the debates regarding this issue.
“PONTINOVA AG” established in Switzerland makes an application to EUIPO in 2016, requesting the registration of the trademark that can be seen below. The scope of the application is “Class 45: Legal services.”
“PONTI & PARTNERS, SLP”, resident in Spain, files an opposition to the application. The ground for opposition is the word mark “Ponti” registered in Spain, which is protected for “Class 45: Intellectual and industrial property consultancy services”.
The opposition division of EUIPO upholds the opposition, and the applicant files an appeal. Upon the refusal of the appeal by the EUIPO Board of Appeal, the applicant files a lawsuit against the decision and the case is heard by the General Court of the Court of Justice.
The General Court concludes the case with its judgement numbered T-76/19 of 13 May 2020. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=226465&pageIndex=0&doclang= EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=14766758
The General Court begins its judgment by establishing, after enumeration of the relevant case-law, that the relevant public is made up both of companies and individuals and that its level of attention is higher than average.
This is followed by the comparison of the services, namely legal services and intellectual and industrial property consultancy services, in other words, examining their similarities.
It was stated in the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal that the legal services in the application include the intellectual and industrial property consultancy services in the earlier trademark, and that therefore it should be accepted that the services at issue are identical.
The applicant objects to this finding. The applicant contends that the services covered by the mark applied for are neither identical nor highly similar to the services designated by the earlier mark. At this point, the applicant claims that the class of intellectual and industrial property services that were in Class 42 at the time the trademark was registered and later transferred to Class 45 and the legal services Class 45 are also different. In addition, according to the applicant, intellectual property consultancy services are not among the services provided by a law firm and that they are fundamentally different. The services of a law firm are to provide legal advice and to represent their clients before the courts, and that these services can only be provided by licensed lawyers. By contrast, intellectual property consultancy services are part of consultancy services, which are general services offered by a wide variety of professionals, such as professionals in the economic, financial or legal sphere, and do not require a license or particular training.
The General Court disputes the applicant’s arguments as follows:
The Nicé classification only serves administrative purposes, and simply because the goods or services are in different classes, goods and services may not be regarded as different on the ground that they appear in different classes under that classification. Additionally, intellectual property consultancy services, which were included in Class 42 at the time the disputed mark was registered now fall under Class 45, and therefore it is clear that the services covered by the marks are in the same class.
In addition, according to settled case-law, services can be considered identical when the services designated by the earlier mark are included in a more general category designated by the trademark application.
Moreover, intellectual and industrial property consultancy services include advice on intellectual property rights, which are legal in nature. Those services are therefore part of legal services, which cover a very wide range of services and are covered by the mark applied for, without being specified or limited.
The fact that legal consultancy services include other services such as representing clients before the courts, will not affect the justification of the above findings. In addition, although intellectual property consultancy services are provided by a wide range of professionals such as economic, financial or legal circles, this will not change the fact that these services have an absolute legal dimension.
The applicant’s argument that it does not provide legal services in the field of intellectual property will have no effect on the enquiry. As stated in the settled case law, the services included in the application will be taken into account, not the services actually marketed under those marks.
For all the aforementioned reasons, the arguments of the applicant that the services subject to examination are not the same in terms of their characteristics are not justified and the assessment by the Board of Appeal that the services covered by the marks are identical is justified.
In the continuation of the decision, the General Court came to the conclusion that the signs subject to comparison were similar to an average degree in visual and aural terms. The Board, taking into account both the similarity of the services and the average similarity of the signs, deduced that the leelihood of confusion between marks may arise. Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeal, which consisted of the same findings, was approved and the case was dismissed. (Since the main purpose of this article is to convey the findings on the similarity of legal services and that of intellectual property consultancy services, the General Court’s assessment on the similarity of signs is not included in the article.)
As it is clear from the decision, both the EUIPO Board of Appeal and the General Court considered legal services as a general category of services that include intellectual property consultancy services and dismissed the applicant’s arguments that these services were unsimilar.
Regardless of the nature of the person providing the service, the approach of the General Court, which takes into account the characteristic and legal dimension of the service, is appropriate in our opinion. In this context, a trademark attorney firm, which does not employ any lawyers and only provides trademark registration consultancy services, essentially provides a legal service and the interpretation based on the characteristic of the service rather than the service provider should be taken as a basis.
This approach can shed light on the discussions that we face in Turkey on the same discussions, and also supports the approach of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office on the subject in terms of the conclusion that was reached.