do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 22 January 2021 2021/C 27/07
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021027EN.01001001.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/10






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 January 2021
(2021/C 27/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2158 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,19 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4404 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89045 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0815 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0773 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3308 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,152 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,61 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5385 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8740 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,0195 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5770 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5458 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4255 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6945 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6149 




KRW


South Korean won


1 344,48 




ZAR


South African rand


18,3810 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8822 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5655 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 140,23 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9155 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,444 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,1009 




THB


Thai baht


36,486 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5765 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2345 




INR


Indian rupee


88,7670 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-407/20: Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 25 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Österreichische Apothekerkammer v HA
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: AIDS, distance selling, import (EU), import restriction, market approval, medical device, medical diagnosis, quantitative restriction








C_2021138EN.01002903.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/29






Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 25 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Österreichische Apothekerkammer v HA
(Case C-407/20) (1)

(2021/C 138/38)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court of Justice has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Case T-39/21: Action brought on 25 January 2021 — PP and Others v Parliament
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: coronavirus disease, damages, epidemic, equal treatment, expatriate worker, legality, part-time employment, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU), temporary employment








C_2021110EN.01003301.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/33






Action brought on 25 January 2021 — PP and Others v Parliament
(Case T-39/21)
(2021/C 110/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: PP, PQ, PR, PS and PT (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


annul the contested decisions;










—


annul, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints made by applicants under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’);










—


order the Parliament to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 1 000 per person;










—


order the Parliament to pay compensation for material damage corresponding to 25 % of their salary and pay compensatory interest and default interest;










—


order the defendant to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Parliament of 31 March 2020 relating to temporary part-time work away from the place of employment for family reasons relating to COVID-19 (‘the decision on 75 % part-time work relating to COVID’) and each individual decision in that respect affecting the applicants, the latter rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, relating to a plea of illegality in that the contested decisions were taken pursuant to unlawful internal rules.










2.


Second plea in law, divided into two parts:






—


first part, alleging infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant manifestly misconstrued the concept of expatriation;










—


second part, alleging infringement of Articles 62 and 69 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and failure to have due regard to the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations regarding recovery of overpayments.




Finally, the applicants seek compensation for the non-material and material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the contested decisions.
Case T-36/21: Action brought on 25 January 2021 — PO v Commission
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, facilities for people with disabilities, worker with disabilities








C_2021110EN.01003201.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/32






Action brought on 25 January 2021 — PO v Commission
(Case T-36/21)
(2021/C 110/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PO (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;




Accordingly,






—


annul the decision of 29 April 2020 informing the applicant that his request for review of the decision not to include his name on the ‘reserve list’ for External Competition ΕΡSO/ΑD/338/17 had been rejected;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decision of 14 October 2020 rejecting the applicant's complaint;










—


remedy the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), an infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Regulations’), an infringement of Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16), an infringement of Article 2 of the United Nations Convention, an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.
Notice for the attention of a person to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt apply 2021/C 27/06
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Egypt, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021027EN.01000901.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/9






Notice for the attention of a person to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt apply
(2021/C 27/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mrs Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar who appears in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt.
The Council has received information from the Egyptian authorities that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures. The abovementioned person is hereby informed that she may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding her designation, before 1 February 2021, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
In this regard, the attention of the person concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 270/2011.


(1)  OJ L 76 22.3.2011, p. 63.

(2)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10077 — Macquarie Bank/Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Company/Vestone Capital) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 34/01
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2021034EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10077 — Macquarie Bank/Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Company/Vestone Capital)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 34/01)
On 25 January 2021, 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 32021M10077. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-52/21: Action brought on 25 January 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, fishing controls, provision of documents








C_2021128EN.01004102.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/41






Action brought on 25 January 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-52/21)
(2021/C 128/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implied decision of the defendant of 16 November 2020 to refuse access to certain requested documents related to fisheries controls pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2)











—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that, as a result of the failure to address to the applicant an express decision regarding its request for access, within the time-limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof. It is argued that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and the applicant therefore submits that it should be annulled because of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 296 TFEU.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 , and in Council Regulation (EU) 101/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 , concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia 2021/C 27/04
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Tunisia, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021027EN.01000701.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/7






Notice for the attention of the persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 , and in Council Regulation (EU) 101/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 , concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia
(2021/C 27/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 101/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 (4) .
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of designated persons, has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Regulation (EU) 101/2011.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 September 2021, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, of the list of designated persons.


(1)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62.

(2)  OJ L 023, 25.1.2021, p. 22.

(3)  OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 023, 25.1.2021, p. 5.
Case T-40/21: Action brought on 25 January 2021 — Slovakia v Commission
Date: 2021-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2021098EN.01003001.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/30






Action brought on 25 January 2021 — Slovakia v Commission
(Case T-40/21)
(2021/C 98/34)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Slovak Republic with regard to the measure ‘Decoupled direct aids’ in respect of the 2016 financial year (and concerning claim years 2013 and 2014) in a total amount of EUR 19 656 905,11;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single pleas in law, which is based on the infringement of Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) in conjunction with Article 34(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (3) inasmuch as the procedural guarantees under those provisions were not observed in relation to the Slovak Republic.
In its plea in law, the applicant claims that by Implementing Decision 2020/1734, the Commission excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 19 656 905,11, incurred by the Slovak Republic under the EAGF and which is part of the financial correction with regard to the measure ‘Decoupled Direct Aids’ in respect of financial year 2016 (Single Area Payment Scheme — weaknesses in LPIS update-quality, quality of on-the-spot checks and instigation of recoveries — claim year 2015), whereas according to the applicant that sum includes claim years 2013 and 2014, which were not the subject of an investigation.


(1)  OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).