do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9771 — Hitachi/Honda/HIAMS/Keihin/Showa/Nissin Kogyo) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 63/03
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry, multinational enterprise, parent company, subsidiary, vehicle parts








C_2021063EN.01000301.xml










23.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9771 — Hitachi/Honda/HIAMS/Keihin/Showa/Nissin Kogyo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 63/03)
On 7 August 2020, 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 32020M9771. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 August 2020 2020/C 259/01
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020259EN.01000101.xml










7.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 August 2020
(2020/C 259/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1843 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,96 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4500 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90033 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3165 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0759 




ISK


Iceland króna


160,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6538 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,202 




HUF


Hungarian forint


346,23 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4073 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8360 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,5853 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6492 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5748 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1786 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7828 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6236 




KRW


South Korean won


1 404,99 




ZAR


South African rand


20,7655 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2325 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4680 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 304,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9604 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,136 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,9321 




THB


Thai baht


36,832 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3340 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,6150 




INR


Indian rupee


88,7650 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-374/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2020 by Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-574/18, Agrochem-Maks v Commission
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality








C_2020329EN.01000801.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/8






Appeal brought on 7 August 2020 by Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-574/18, Agrochem-Maks v Commission
(Case C-374/20 P)
(2020/C 329/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of the procedure regarding requests for additional information in the context of the renewal of the approval of the active substance.
The General Court committed an error of law by holding that the complaint (relating to the seven non-finalised issues) that the existence of disagreements between EFSA’s assessments and that of the rapporteur Member State requires in-depth reasoning on that question must be rejected as unfounded in relation to the fourth issue and as ineffective with relation to the other issues.
The General Court committed an error of law by failing to take into account all the relevant elements in order to examine the appellant’s legitimate expectations.
The General Court erroneously qualified the facts and infringed Article 6(f) of Regulation No 1107/2009 (1), point 2.2 of Annex II to that regulation and the principle of proportionality.
The General Court committed an error of law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the precautionary principle.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009, L 309, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1566 of 18 October 2018 concerning the authorisation of the preparation of endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase and endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (NRRL 25541) and alpha-amylase produced by Aspergillus niger (ATCC66222) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and minor porcine species (weaned) and amending Regulation (EC) No 1453/2004 (holder of authorisation Andrès Pintaluba S.A.) (Official Journal of the European Union L 262 of 19 October 2018)
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, food additive, market approval, swine








L_2020258EN.01005101.xml










7.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 258/51







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1566 of 18 October 2018 concerning the authorisation of the preparation of endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase and endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (NRRL 25541) and alpha-amylase produced by Aspergillus niger (ATCC66222) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and minor porcine species (weaned) and amending Regulation (EC) No 1453/2004 (holder of authorisation Andrès Pintaluba S.A.)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 262 of 19 October 2018
)


In the title, in the text and in Annex:
for:


                  ‘
                  Aspergillus niger (ATCC66222)’,

read:


                  ‘
                  Aspergillus orizae (ATCC66222)’,
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1198 of 7 August 2020 approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Piave’ (PDO))
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Veneto, cows’ milk cheese, designation of origin, hard cheese, labelling, product designation








L_2020267EN.01000101.xml










14.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 267/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1198
of 7 August 2020
         
approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Piave’ (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Piave’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 443/2010 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Piave’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 August 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 443/2010 of 21 May 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piave (PDO)) (OJ L 126, 22.5.2010, p. 10).

(3)  
            OJ C 115, 7.4.2020, p. 21.
Notice from the Government of Denmark pursuant to Council Directive 2009/119/EC imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products 2020/C 259/04
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: Denmark
Subjects: EU control, crude oil, diesel fuel, energy supply, gas, minimum stock, petrol, security of supply








C_2020259EN.01001001.xml










7.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/10






Notice from the Government of Denmark pursuant to Council Directive 2009/119/EC imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products
(2020/C 259/04)
In accordance with Article 9(4) of Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (1), Denmark hereby notifies its undertaking to maintain specific stocks.






1.


The level of the specific stocks that Denmark undertakes to maintain is equivalent to 30 days of average daily consumption.










2.


The undertaking applies to the period from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.










3.


The specific stocks will be composed of the following product categories:






—


Motor gasoline










—


Gas/diesel oil














4.


The stocks will be owned and held by the central Danish stockholding entity, Foreningen Danske Olieberedskabslagre (FDO).






(1)  OJ L 265, 9.10.2009, p. 9.
Case C-371/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, represented by Peek & Cloppenburg Düsseldorf Komplementär B.V. v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, represented by Van Graaf Management GmbH
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, consumer information, mass media, payment, sales promotion








C_2020348EN.01000901.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, represented by Peek & Cloppenburg Düsseldorf Komplementär B.V. v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, represented by Van Graaf Management GmbH
(Case C-371/20)
(2020/C 348/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, represented by the personally liable partner Peek & Cloppenburg Düsseldorf Komplementär B.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, represented by the personally liable partner Van Graaf Management GmbH

Questions referred









1.


Is there a ‘payment’ for product promotion within the meaning of the first sentence of point 11 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC (1) only in the case where monetary consideration is provided for the use of editorial content in the media to promote a product, or does the term ‘payment’ cover every kind of consideration, irrespective of whether this consists of money, goods, services or assets of any other kind?












2.


Does the first sentence of point 11 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC presuppose that the trader provides the media operator with a non-cash benefit as consideration for the use of editorial content and, if so, must such consideration also be assumed to be present in the case where the media operator reports on an advertisement organised in conjunction with a trader, where that trader has made image rights available to the media operator for the purposes of that report, both undertakings have contributed towards the costs and effort associated with that advertisement and the advertisement serves to promote sales of the products of both undertakings?






(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 7 August 2020 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Suomen Pankki (ECB/2020/37) 2020/C 268/01
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Finland, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area








C_2020268EN.01000101.xml










14.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 268/1






RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 7 August 2020
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Suomen Pankki (ECB/2020/37)
(2020/C 268/01)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of Suomen Pankki’s current external auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers Oy, ended after the audit for the financial year 2019. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2020.










(3)


Suomen Pankki has selected KPMG Oy Ab as its external auditors for the financial years 2020 to 2025,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that KPMG Oy Ab should be appointed as the external auditors of Suomen Pankki for the financial years 2020 to 2025.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 7 August 2020.


The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE
Case C-370/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2020 — Pro Rauchfrei e.V. v JS e.K.
Date: 2020-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: automatic vending machine, consumer information, health risk, market approval, packaging product, product designation, tobacco industry








C_2020390EN.01002001.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2020 — Pro Rauchfrei e.V. v JS e.K.
(Case C-370/20)
(2020/C 390/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Pro Rauchfrei e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: JS e.K.

Questions referred







1.


Does the concept of ‘placing on the market’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 8(3) of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) cover the offering of tobacco products via vending machines in such a way that, although the cigarette packets contained in them display the warnings prescribed by law, the cigarette packets are initially stocked in the machine in such a way that they are not visible to the consumer, and the warnings on them become visible only when the customer operates the machine, which has previously been enabled by the cashier, and the cigarette packet is thus dispensed onto the checkout belt prior to the payment process?










2.


Does the prohibition in the first sentence of Article 8(3) of Directive 2014/40/EU on warnings being ‘hidden by other items’ cover the case in which the entire tobacco packaging is hidden when the goods are presented by an automatic vending machine?










3.


Is the criterion of ‘images of unit packets’ in Article 8(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU satisfied even if an image is not a faithful depiction of the original packaging, but the consumer associates the image with tobacco packaging on account of its design in terms of outline, proportions, colour and brand logo?










4.


Are the requirements of Article 8(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU satisfied even if the consumer has the opportunity to see the cigarette packaging with the prescribed warnings prior to the conclusion of the contract of sale, irrespective of the depiction used?






(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).