do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9953 — CalSTRS/Altitude Group/AI THD) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 375/03
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2020375EN.01004201.xml










6.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/42






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9953 — CalSTRS/Altitude Group/AI THD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 375/03)
On 28 October 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 32020M9953. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9929 — EDP/Viesgo) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 383/02
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy








C_2020383EN.01000301.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9929 — EDP/Viesgo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 383/02)
On 28 October 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 32020M9929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-110/18: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Grange Backup Power v Commission
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, Northern Ireland, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, withdrawal from the EU








C_2021019EN.01007102.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/71






Order of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Grange Backup Power v Commission
(Case T-110/18) (1)

(2021/C 19/78)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Case C-716/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid — Spain) — ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petolíferos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Final decision of a national competition authority finding a practice restrictive of competition — Scope of the probative value of the facts examined and established — Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, restriction on competition








C_2021044EN.01001001.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/10






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid — Spain) — ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petolíferos SA
(Case C-716/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Final decision of a national competition authority finding a practice restrictive of competition - Scope of the probative value of the facts examined and established - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 44/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: ZA, AZ, BX, CV, DU, ET

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petolíferos SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de Madrid (Commercial Court No 2, Madrid, Spain) by decision of 29 July 2019 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Case C-608/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) v Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 — Article 3 — De minimis aid — Article 6 — Monitoring — Undertakings exceeding the de minimis ceiling because of cumulation with aid obtained previously — Option of choosing between reduction and forgoing previous aid so as to comply with the de minimis ceiling)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid








C_2020433EN.01001401.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/14






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) v Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C.
(Case C-608/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 - Article 3 - De minimis aid - Article 6 - Monitoring - Undertakings exceeding the de minimis ceiling because of cumulation with aid obtained previously - Option of choosing between reduction and forgoing previous aid so as to comply with the de minimis ceiling)
(2020/C 433/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

Defendant: Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 3 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, the Member State of establishment of which intends to grant it de minimis aid that, because of existing previous aid, would raise the total amount of aid granted to that undertaking to a level above the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013, may opt, until such aid is granted, to reduce the funding required or to forgo, in full or in part, previous financial assistance already received, so as not to exceed that ceiling.










2.


Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1407/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not required to allow applicant undertakings to amend their applications for aid before such aid is granted, so as not to exceed the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down by Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013. It is for the referring court to assess the legal consequences of the fact that undertakings do not have the option of making such changes, it being understood that they may be made only at a date prior to that on which the de minimis aid is granted.






(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case C-313/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission (Appeal — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 — Action for annulment brought by an association — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Person directly concerned)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, herbicide, market approval, plant health control








C_2020433EN.01001201.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission
(Case C-313/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 - Action for annulment brought by an association - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Person directly concerned)
(2020/C 433/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (represented by: G. Dalfino, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Bianchi and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case T-653/20: Action brought on 28 October 2020 — Mylan Ireland v EMA
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, generic drug, innovation, market approval, marketing standard








C_2020433EN.01006502.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/65






Action brought on 28 October 2020 — Mylan Ireland v EMA
(Case T-653/20)
(2020/C 433/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mylan Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: O. Swens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the plea of illegality raised by the applicant against the conclusion of the CHMP that Sanofi has a new active substance status, as quoted in the decision of 26 August 2013 granting marketing authorisation for ‘AubagioTM — Teriflunomide’ is admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision of EMA of 18 August 2020 not to validate Mylan’s application for a generic version of the medicinal product AubagioTM.; and,










—


order the EMA 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 the exception of illegality being well-founded, the challenged decision is not legally admissible because the EMA erred in fact and law and failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons and to perform a careful and thorough assessment, as provided under Article 296 TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the legality of the challenged decision is also contested, given that the ‘new active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of Mylan’s objections which were submitted during the application phase. Thus, the EMA has allegedly failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, which in turn renders the challenged decision illegal.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 October 2020 2020/C 362/02
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020362EN.01000201.xml










28.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 October 2020
(2020/C 362/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1832 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4406 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90718 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3060 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0732 




ISK


Iceland króna


165,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8398 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,337 




HUF


Hungarian forint


365,41 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5842 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8765 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,6466 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6585 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5589 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1699 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7639 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6078 




KRW


South Korean won


1 332,89 




ZAR


South African rand


19,0620 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9345 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5745 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 344,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9274 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,157 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,5710 




THB


Thai baht


36,940 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6711 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,6622 




INR


Indian rupee


87,1635 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-521/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW v Poste Tutela SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 13 — Activities relating to the provision of postal services — Contracting entities — Public undertakings — Admissibility)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, postal service, provision of services, public contract, public procurement, public sector, service industry








C_2020433EN.01000601.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW v Poste Tutela SpA
(Case C-521/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procurement in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 13 - Activities relating to the provision of postal services - Contracting entities - Public undertakings - Admissibility)
(2020/C 433/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW

Defendant: Poste Tutela SpA

Interveners: Poste Italiane SpA, Services Group

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC must be interpreted as applying to activities consisting in the provision of caretaking, reception and access control services for the premises of postal services providers, where such activities are connected with the activity falling within the postal sector, in the sense that such activities actually serve to carry out that activity by enabling it to be carried out adequately, having regard to the normal conditions under which it is carried out.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 362/03
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating








C_2020362EN.01000301.xml










28.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/3






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 362/03)

Decision granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2020) 7104


21 October 2020


Chromium trioxide
EC No 215-607-8, CAS No 1333-82-0


ThyssenKrupp Rasselstein GmbH Koblenzer Str. 141, 56626 Andernach, Germany.


REACH/20/15/0


Passivation of tin-plated steel


7 years from the date of adoption of this Decision


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.




REACH/20/15/1


Electrolytic chromium coating of steel


31 December 2028






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case C-112/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Germany) — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/126/EC — Article 2(1) and Article 11(4) — Driving licence — Mutual recognition — Extent of the obligation to recognise — Driving licence having been the subject of an exchange — Exchange made at a time when the right to drive had been withdrawn by the issuing Member State — Fraud — Refusal to recognise the driving licence issued in the context of the exchange)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, driving licence, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2020433EN.01000801.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/8






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Germany) — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg
(Case C-112/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 2(1) and Article 11(4) - Driving licence - Mutual recognition - Extent of the obligation to recognise - Driving licence having been the subject of an exchange - Exchange made at a time when the right to drive had been withdrawn by the issuing Member State - Fraud - Refusal to recognise the driving licence issued in the context of the exchange)
(2020/C 433/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marvin M.

Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that mutual recognition, without any formality, which it lays down, is applicable to a driving licence issued following an exchange under Article 11(1) of that directive, subject to the exceptions provided for by that directive;










2.


The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a Member State to refuse to recognise a driving licence which was the subject of an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive, on the ground that that Member State had, prior to that exchange, withdrawn the authorisation to drive from the holder of that driving licence.






(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 28 October 2020 on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (CON/2020/26) 2020/C 372/03
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








C_2020372EN.01001101.xml










4.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/11






OPINION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 28 October 2020
on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
(CON/2020/26)
(2020/C 372/03)

Introduction and legal basis

On 14 October 2020 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on Council Recommendation of 9 October 2020 on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (1).
The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations









1.


The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Frank ELDERSON be appointed as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board for a term of office of eight years with effect from 15 December 2020.












2.


The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty.












3.


The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Frank Elderson as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 28 October 2020.


The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE




(1)  OJ C 338, 12.10.2020, p. 2.