do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/… of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59) (Official Journal of the European Union L 418 of 11 December 2020)
Date: 2021-01-07
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: consumer information, electronic commerce, electronic money, financial legislation, financial services, financial statistics, intra-EU payment, payment








L_2021003EN.01004101.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 3/41







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/… of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)


(
Official Journal of the European Union L 418 of 11 December 2020
)


On page 1, the title of the Regulation:
for:


                  ‘REGULATION (EU) 2020/… OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 1 December 2020
               
amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)
                  ’
               

read:


                  ‘REGULATION (EU) 2020/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 1 December 2020
               
amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)
                  ’
Case C-16/21 P: Appeal brought on 7 January 2021 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v European Commission
Date: 2021-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_2021148EN.01000601.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/6






Appeal brought on 7 January 2021 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v European Commission
(Case C-16/21 P)
(2021/C 148/07)
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pharma Mar, SA (represented by: M. Merola and V. Salvatore), European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020;










—


order each of the parties to bear their own costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Estonia puts forward the following arguments:






1.


The General Court misconstrued the requirement of impartiality laid down in Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) by finding that, in respect of experts who participate in the work of a scientific advisory group (SAG), owing to the mere fact that they are in an employment relationship with a university hospital, any legitimate doubt as to possible bias that may exist in respect of their impartiality cannot be excluded.










2.


First, when examining the principle of impartiality within the meaning of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the General Court erred in finding that a university hospital can, as a whole, be equated with a pharmaceutical company.










3.


Second, when examining the principle of impartiality the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the rival medicinal product and the connection between the expert and the manufacture of the ‘rival medicinal product’.










4.


Third, when examining the principle of impartiality the General Court erred by failing properly to assess the connection between the experts concerned and the cell therapy centre and the experts’ influence on the SAG’s decisions.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur in the case of Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State (Case E-11/20) 2021/C 5/15
Date: 2021-01-07
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, commuting, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, remuneration of work, working time, workplace








C_2021005EN.01001501.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/15






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur in the case of Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State
(Case E-11/20)
(2021/C 5/15)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 June and 26 August 2020 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 August 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State on the following questions:






1.


Should Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC be interpreted as meaning that time spent travelling by an employee in the service of, and at the behest of, his employer, to a workplace which is not the employee’s regular workplace, is working time when it falls outside traditional daytime working hours?










2.


For the purpose of answering Question 1, is it of significance whether the journey made by the employee for the employer is made domestically or between countries?










3.


For the purpose of answering Question 1, is it of significance what form the work contribution takes during the journey?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10006 - Covestro/Koninklijke DSM) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 5/18
Date: 2021-01-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, paints and varnishes, plastics industry, special polymer








C_2021005EN.01002001.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10006 - Covestro/Koninklijke DSM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 5/18)

1.   
On 23 December 2020, 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:






—


Covestro AG (‘Covestro’, Germany),










—


The Resins & Functional Materials businesses (‘Target’) of Koninklijke DSM N.V (‘DSM’, Netherlands).




Covestro acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the Target.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Covestro AG focuses on the supply of high-performance polymers and components for such polymers. Covestro AG operates three segments: Polyurethanes (PUR), Polycarbonates (PCS), and Coatings, Adhesives, Specialties (CAS).










—


The Target is primarily active in the supply of resins for use in coatings and the supply of glass fibre coatings.






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.



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.10006 - Covestro/Koninklijke DSM
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’).
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2021-01-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, agreement (EU), air safety, civil aviation








L_2021003EN.01000301.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 3/3







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China

The Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, signed in Brussels on 20 May 2019, entered into force on 1 September 2020, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 20 July 2020.
Case T-6/21: Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)
Date: 2021-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, cosmetic product, dietary product, foodstuff, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01004701.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/47






Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)
(Case T-6/21)
(2021/C 62/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Advanced Organic Materials, SA (Pilar, Argentina) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swiss Pharma International AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Defendant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ADVASTEROL — Application for registration No 14 525 521

Proceedings before the EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2020 in Case R 781/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as, by dismissing the appeal of Advanced Organic Materials, SA, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division, which partially upheld opposition B 2 624 370, refusing some of the goods covered by European Union trade mark No 14 525 521 ADVASTEROL (word mark);










—


order the opposing party or parties 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.