do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-649/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Articles 4 to 7 — Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Letter of Rights on arrest — Right to be informed of the accusation — Right of access to the materials of the case — Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State)
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, arrest, charge, criminal proceedings, right to information, rights of the defence








C_2021088EN.01001002.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/10






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR
(Case C-649/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Articles 4 to 7 - Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Letter of Rights on arrest - Right to be informed of the accusation - Right of access to the materials of the case - Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State)
(2021/C 88/11)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main criminal proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant.










2.


The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas on the short-stay visa waiver
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bahamas, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national, revision of an agreement








L_2021030EN.01000101.xml










28.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 30/1







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas on the short-stay visa waiver

The Agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas on the short-stay visa waiver will enter into force on 1 June 2021, the procedure provided for in Article 2 of the Agreement having been completed on 31 December 2020.
Special report 3/2021 ‘Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the implementation’ 2021/C 31/05
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, European tax cooperation, exchange of information, single market, tax collection, tax law








C_2021031EN.01000501.xml










28.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/5






Special report 3/2021
‘Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the implementation’
(2021/C 31/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report 3/2021 ‘Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the implementation’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-68/21: Action brought on 28 January 2021 — QA v Commission
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2021138EN.01004301.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/43






Action brought on 28 January 2021 — QA v Commission
(Case T-68/21)
(2021/C 138/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QA (represented by: C. Roth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the European Commission to pay a sum of EUR 397 038,30 [to QA] on account of the material damage she suffered as a result of the infringement by the Commission of the principles of proportionality, good administration and the rights of the defence, as derived from European Union law;










—


order the European Commission to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 [to QA] on account of the non-material damage she suffered as a result of the infringement of the principle of proportionality, as derived from European Union law;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs, including non-recoverable expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first three of which concern the material damage which she has allegedly suffered due to a shortfall in her present and future remuneration, and the fourth concerns the non-material damage which she allegedly suffered due to injury to her reputation.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality by the European Commission, which thus constitutes an unlawful act for which the Commission is responsible and which caused damage to the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging non-observance of the rights of the defence by the European Commission, which thus constitutes an unlawful act for which the Commission is responsible and which caused damage to the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration by the European Commission, which thus constitutes an unlawful act for which the Commission is responsible and which caused damage to the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality by the European Commission, which thus constitutes an unlawful act for which the Commission is responsible and which caused damage to the applicant.
Case C-48/21 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-377/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, maintenance, printer, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021297EN.01001501.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/15






Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-377/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-48/21 P)
(2021/C 297/15)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Topcart GmbH (represented by: M. Hoffmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carl International
By order of 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 January 2021 2021/C 31/04
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021031EN.01000401.xml










28.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 January 2021
(2021/C 31/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2114 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,87 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88395 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1139 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0759 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4555 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,025 




HUF


Hungarian forint


360,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5520 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8753 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,9542 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5744 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5453 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3911 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6844 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6088 




KRW


South Korean won


1 340,79 




ZAR


South African rand


18,4379 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8411 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5590 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 123,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9007 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,270 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,7258 




THB


Thai baht


36,342 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4967 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,4497 




INR


Indian rupee


88,4380 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-44/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: injunction, patent law








C_2021182EN.01002703.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-44/21)
(2021/C 182/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) if German higher regional courts (Oberlandesgerichte), which have jurisdiction at last instance in proceedings for interim relief, refuse, in principle, to grant interim measures for patent infringement if the patent in dispute has not survived opposition or invalidity proceedings at first instance?


(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
Case C-52/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, establishment, freedom to provide services, invoicing, tax collection








C_2021128EN.01002201.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge
(Case C-52/21)
(2021/C 128/27)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL

Respondent: État belge

Question referred

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding legislation, or a national practice, under which companies established in one Member State which use services of companies established in another Member State are required, in order to avoid a corporation tax levy of 100 % or 50 % of the sums invoiced by the latter, to complete and submit to the tax authorities individual fee forms and summary statements relating to those expenses whereas, if they use the services of resident companies, they are under no such obligation in order to avoid that levy?
Case C-53/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge — SPF Finances
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, establishment, freedom to provide services, invoicing, tax collection








C_2021128EN.01002301.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge — SPF Finances
(Case C-53/21)
(2021/C 128/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL

Respondent: État belge — SPF Finances

Question referred

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding legislation, or a national practice, under which companies established in one Member State which use services of companies established in another Member State are required, in order to avoid a corporation tax levy of 100 % or 50 % of the sums invoiced by the latter, to complete and submit to the tax authorities individual fee forms and summary statements relating to those expenses whereas, if they use the services of resident companies, they are under no such obligation in order to avoid that levy?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10096 — Invitalia/ArcelorMittal/AM InvestCo) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 80/02
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, flat product, iron and steel industry, merger control, mining industry, multinational enterprise, public administration, subsidiary








C_2021080EN.01001301.xml










9.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/13






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10096 — Invitalia/ArcelorMittal/AM InvestCo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 80/02)
On 28 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 32021M10096. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-545/19: Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, financial solvency, payment, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU), steel








C_2021088EN.01004601.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/46






Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission
(Case T-545/19) (1)

(2021/C 88/61)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.
Case C-49/21 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-378/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, printer, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021297EN.01001502.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/15






Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-378/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-49/21 P)
(2021/C 297/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Topcart GmbH (represented by: M. Hoffmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carl International
By order of 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-602/20: Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — MS v Commission
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, infringement of EU law, pension scheme, retirement conditions, seniority, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021098EN.01003602.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/36






Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — MS v Commission
(Case T-602/20) (1)

(2021/C 98/42)
Language of the case: German
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 404, 30.11.2020.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/125 of 28 January 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Huile de noix du Périgord’ (PDO))
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: France, Midi-Pyrenées, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, vegetable oil








L_2021040EN.01000101.xml










4.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 40/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/125
of 28 January 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Huile de noix du Périgord’ (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)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Huile de noix du Périgord’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Huile de noix du Périgord’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Huile de noix du Périgord’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 28 January 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  
            OJ C 308, 17.9.2020, p. 22.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10010 — Investindustrial Group/CSM Ingredients) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 31/08
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bakery, confectionery, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, semi-manufactured goods








C_2021031EN.01004801.xml










28.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/48






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10010 — Investindustrial Group/CSM Ingredients)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 31/08)

1.   
On 18 January 2021, 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:






—


Global Food Solutions S.àr.l. (Luxembourg), ultimately controlled by Investindustrial S.A. (‘Investindustrial’, Luxembourg);










—


CSM Ingredients (the United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by Rhône Capital L.L.C. (USA);




Global Food Solutions acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of part(s) of CSM Ingredients.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Investindustrial: investments in medium-sized companies based in Europe, including Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, focusing on three main investment areas: consumer and leisure, healthcare and services, and industrial manufacturing;










—


CSM Ingredients: manufacturing and distribution of semi-finished bakery, dairy and ice-cream ingredients, mainly to the artisanal traditional trade (pastry and bakery shops) and industrial channels;






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:
Case M.10010 — Investindustrial Group/CSM Ingredients
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.