do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People's Republic of China in connection with DS492 European Union — Measures affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, World Trade Organisation, agreement (EU), meat product, poultrymeat, tariff preference, trade dispute








L_2019082EN.01000101.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 82/1







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People's Republic of China in connection with DS492 European Union — Measures affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People's Republic of China in connection with DS492 European Union — Measures affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products (1), signed in Geneva on 30 November 2018, will enter into force on 1 April 2019.


(1)  
            OJ L 27, 31.1.2019, p. 4.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019111EN.01000401.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 March 2019
(2019/C 111/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1302 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,60 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4622 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85890 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4723 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1243 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6423 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,727 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,23 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2913 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7505 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2979 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5923 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5155 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8683 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6433 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5266 




KRW


South Korean won


1 282,81 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2469 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5868 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4178 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 046,58 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5937 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,337 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,7425 




THB


Thai baht


35,793 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3760 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4447 




INR


Indian rupee


77,9580 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-249/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 25 March 2019 — JE v KF
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, private international law








C_2019206EN.01002801.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 25 March 2019 — JE v KF
(Case C-249/19)
(2019/C 206/32)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: JE

Rrespondent: KF

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010, (1) under which ‘[w]here the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce or does not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex, the law of the forum shall apply’, is the expression ‘the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ to be interpreted in a strict, literal manner, that it is to say only in respect of a situation where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for any form of divorce, or (b) more broadly, as also including a situation where the foreign law applicable permits divorce, but does so in extremely limited circumstances, involving an obligatory legal separation procedure prior to divorce, in respect of which the law of the forum contains no equivalent procedural provisions?


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10).
Case T-176/19: Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical compound, disclosure of information, marketing standard, product safety, public health, scientific report, toxic substance








C_2019172EN.01004101.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/41






Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA
(Case T-176/19)
(2019/C 172/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: 3V Sigma SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bryant and S. Hainsworth, Solicitors, and C. Krampitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul the decision of the defendant’s board of appeal of 15 January 2019 regarding the substance evaluation of bis(2-ethylhexyl) 4,4’-{6-[4-tert-butylcarbamoyl) anilino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diyldiimino}dibenzoate insofar as it (i) dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against the original decision and (ii) decided that the applicant must provide information on the OECD TG 308 study by 22 October 2020; and










—


order defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that an error in law and a manifest error of assessment were committed in considering that the OECD TG 308 study is necessary.
The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in failing to distinguish, on one hand, the conditions under which tests must be carried out in order to establish the existence or, otherwise, transformation and/or degradation products of a substance and, on the other hand, the conditions under which an assessment of the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties of any such transformation and/or degradation product must be carried out. As a result, the applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erroneously concluded that the OECD TG 308 study requested from the applicant was necessary.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the designated testing temperatures are appropriate.
The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the designated testing temperature for the OECD TG 308 study, namely 20 oC, was appropriate. The defendant’s board of appeal would have failed to take into account the fact that performing the study at higher temperature would have a material impact on the concentrations of any transformation and/or degradation products formed and, consequently, on which, if any of them, would then be subject to a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic/very persistent and very bioaccumulative assessment, thus critically undermining the appropriateness of the study.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9280 — DXC Technology/Luxoft Holding) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2019141EN.01000101.xml










17.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9280 — DXC Technology/Luxoft Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 141/01)
On 25 March 2019, 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 32019M9280. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) for the financial year 2018 (OJ C 108, 22.3.2018)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts








C_2019111EN.01006001.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/60






Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) for the financial year 2018
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 108 of 22.3.2018
)
(2019/C 111/16)
On page 149, in column ‘Appropriations 2017’:






—


row ‘Chapter 2 0’:





for:


‘2 379 181’,


read:


‘2 369 181’.







—


row ‘Title 2 — Total’:





for:


‘3 362 666’,


read:


‘3 352 666’.







—


row ‘Chapter 3 2’:





for:


‘3 771 381’,


read:


‘3 771 380’.







—


row ‘Title 3 — Total’:





for:


‘4 774 144’,


read:


‘4 774 143’.







—


row ‘GRAND TOTAL’:





for:


‘24 009 257’,


read:


‘23 999 256’.
Case T-190/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for renewable energies — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Action brought by a recipient — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, renewable energy








C_2019172EN.01003501.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/35






Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission
(Case T-190/18) (1)

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for renewable energies - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Action brought by a recipient - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 172/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Solwindet las Lomas, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.











3.



Solwindet las Lomas, SL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.











4.



Solwindet las Lomas, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9318 — Colisée/Armonea) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, home care, merger control, social facilities








C_2019111EN.01005401.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/54






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9318 — Colisée/Armonea)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 111/14)

1.   
On 18 March 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Financière Colisée S.A.S. (‘Colisée’, France). Colisée is controlled by Indigo International, a company controlled by IK VIII Limited, a fund operated by IK Investment Partners,










—


Armonea Group NV (‘Armonea’, Belgium). Armonea is currently controlled by Cofintra SA and Oaktree Invest NV through Stichting Administratiekantoor Armonea.




Colisée acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Armonea.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Colisée: French nursing home operator, which manages nursing homes and provides homecare services,
—   for Armonea: a Belgian nursing home operator, which manages nursing homes, service flats, and residencies.


3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9318 — Colisée/Armonea
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, merger control, semi-manufactured goods, subsidiary, waste recycling








C_2019121EN.01000101.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/1






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 121/01)
On 25 March 2019, 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 fax (+ 32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris, 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 T-186/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for renewable energies — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Action brought by recipients — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, equal treatment, principle of proportionality








C_2019172EN.01003401.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/34






Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission
(Case T-186/18) (1)

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for renewable energies - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Action brought by recipients - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 172/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Abaco Energy, SA (Madrid, Spain) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: initially P. Holtrop, P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, and subsequently P. Holtrop, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.











3.



Abaco Energy, SA, and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.











4.



Abaco Energy and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Case C-251/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2019 by Comprojecto-Projetos e Construções, Lda and Others against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Case T-768/17 by Comprojecto Pr jetos e Construções, Lda and Others v European Central Bank (ECB)
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, credit institution, economic policy, financial supervision, monetary policy, money laundering








C_2019182EN.01002601.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/26






Appeal brought on 25 March 2019 by Comprojecto-Projetos e Construções, Lda and Others against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Case T-768/17 by Comprojecto Pr jetos e Construções, Lda and Others v European Central Bank (ECB)
(Case C-251/19 P)
(2019/C 182/31)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellants: Comprojecto-Projetos e Construções, Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Gomes de Azevedo (represented by: M. Ribeiro, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellants submit that the Court of Justice should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible, and refer the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the substance;










—


Pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the decision and refer the case back to the General Court, requiring that costs be duly assessed, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9163 — DA Agravis Machinery/Konekesko Eesti/Konekesko Latvija/ Konekesko Lietuva/Konekesko Finnish Agromachinery Trade business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 8/02
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: after-sales service, agricultural machinery, agricultural product, animal feedingstuffs, economic concentration, fertiliser, merger control, plant health product, sale, seed








C_2020008EN.01000201.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9163 — DA Agravis Machinery/Konekesko Eesti/Konekesko Latvija/ Konekesko Lietuva/Konekesko Finnish Agromachinery Trade business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 8/02)
On 25 March 2019, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 32019M9163. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-250/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2019 — B. O. L. v État belge
Date: 2019-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age of majority, dependant, family migration, foreign national, infancy, residence permit








C_2019182EN.01002501.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2019 — B. O. L. v État belge
(Case C-250/19)
(2019/C 182/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B. O. L.

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred







1.


In order to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law and not make it impossible to enjoy the right to family reunification which, according to the applicant, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1), must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child is able to enjoy the right to family reunification where he becomes an adult during the court proceedings brought against the decision which refuses to grant him that right and was taken when he was still a minor?’










2.


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal to grant a right to family reunification to a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child became an adult during the court proceedings, since he is deprived of the opportunity for a judgment to be given in his action against that decision and his right to an effective remedy is infringed?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.