do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-58/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — GWS Stadtwerke Hameln v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01003801.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/38






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — GWS Stadtwerke Hameln v Commission
(Case T-58/21)
(2021/C 138/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH (Hameln, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the merger of E.ON/Innogy to be compatible with the internal market, (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to provide the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the legal and travel-related costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v European Commission.
Case T-65/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — enercity v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01004202.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/42






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — enercity v Commission
(Case T-65/21)
(2021/C 138/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: enercity AG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 (Case M.8870);










—


join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the actions concerning the same decision M.8870, which, on account of the substantive connection between them, are cumulative and form a single decision closing the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/Innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market,(Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16), relies on a single plea in law which is, in essence, identical or similar to that raised in Case T-63/21, Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission.
Case T-59/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01003802.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/38






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission
(Case T-59/21)
(2021/C 138/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.
Case T-55/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01003701.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/37






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission
(Case T-55/21)
(2021/C 138/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2021/C 32/08
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Arctic Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Poland, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2021032EN.01001101.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/11






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2021/C 32/08)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


17.12.2020




Duration


17.12.2020 – 31.12.2020




Member State


Poland




Stock or Group of stocks


HER/1/2-




Species


Herring (Clupea harengus)




Zone


Union, Faroese, Norwegian and international waters of 1 and 2




Type(s) of fishing vessels


---




Reference number


33/TQ123






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Notice concerning the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force in respect of imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of one company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for non-sampled cooperating companies and to the definitive countervailing duty rate for non-cooperating companies 2021/C 32/09
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, business name, countervailing charge, electric vehicle, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2021032EN.01001201.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/12






Notice concerning the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force in respect of imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of one company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for non-sampled cooperating companies and to the definitive countervailing duty rate for non-cooperating companies
(2021/C 32/09)
Imports of cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor (‘electric bicycles’) originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 (1) (‘Regulation (EU) 2019/73’) and a definitive countervailing duty, imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 (2) (‘Regulation (EU) 2019/72’).
Wuxi Merry Ebike Co., Ltd. (TARIC (3) additional code C456) is a company located in the People’s Republic of China whose exports to the Union of electric bicycles are subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for non-sampled cooperating companies of 16,2 % and to the anti-subsidy rate for non-cooperating companies of 17,2 %. On 29 October 2020, Wuxi Merry Ebike Co., Ltd. informed the Commission that as of 18 September 2020 it had changed its name as set out below.
The company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual anti-dumping duty applied to the company under its previous name.
The Commission examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) 2019/73 and of Regulation (EU) 2019/72.
Therefore, the references in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2019/73 and in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2019/72 to:







Wuxi Merry Ebike Co., Ltd.


Jiangsu


C456




should be read as:







Changzhou Merry Ebike Co., Ltd.


Jiangsu


C456




The TARIC additional code C456 previously attributed to Wuxi Merry Ebike Co., Ltd. shall apply to Changzhou Merry Ebike Co., Ltd.


(1)  OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 108.

(2)  OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 5.

(3)  The Integrated Tariff of the European Union.
Case C-50/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 29 January 2021 — Prestige and Limousine, S.L. v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, provision of services, right of establishment, taxi, trade licence, transport licence, vehicle rental








C_2021228EN.01001302.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 29 January 2021 — Prestige and Limousine, S.L. v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona
(Case C-50/21)
(2021/C 228/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Prestige and Limousine, S.L.

Defendant: Área Metropolitana de Barcelona

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude national laws — statutory and regulatory provisions — which, without any reasonable justification, limit PHV (1) licences to one for every 30 taxi licences or fewer?










2.


Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude a rule of national law which, without any reasonable justification, requires a second licence and the fulfilment of additional requirements for PHVs wishing to provide urban services?






(1)  Private hire vehicle.
Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 29 January 2021 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.)) 2021/C 32 I/01
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coronavirus disease, drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, vaccine








CI2021032EN.01000101.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 32/1






Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 29 January 2021


(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

(2021/C 32 I/01)






—



Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted













Date of the decision


Name of the medicinal product


INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)


Holder of the marketing authorisation


Number of the entry in the Community Register


Pharmaceutical form


ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)


Date of notification




29.1.2021


COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca


COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])







AstraZeneca AB




151 85 Södertälje, Sverige






EU/1/21/1529


Suspension for injection


J07BX03


29.1.2021








Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:






European Medicines Agency






Domenico Scarlattilaan 6






1083 HS Amsterdam






NETHERLANDS







(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 January 2021 2021/C 32/04
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021032EN.01000401.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 January 2021
(2021/C 32/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2091 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4368 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88603 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1353 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0783 




ISK


Iceland króna


156,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5205 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,114 




HUF


Hungarian forint


360,34 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5471 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8761 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,9313 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5914 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5564 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3742 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7008 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6119 




KRW


South Korean won


1 350,76 




ZAR


South African rand


18,4355 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8226 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5652 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 069,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8914 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,126 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,3842 




THB


Thai baht


36,315 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5857 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,7187 




INR


Indian rupee


88,3210 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-64/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Mainova v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01004201.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/42






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Mainova v Commission
(Case T-64/21)
(2021/C 138/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mainova AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 (Case M.8870);










—


join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the actions concerning the same decision M.8870, which, on account of the substantive connection between them, are cumulative and form a single decision closing the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/Innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16), relies on a single plea in law which is, in essence, identical or similar to that raised in Case T-63/21, Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10085 — Clearlake Capital Group/Siris Capital Group/Endurance/Web.com) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 40/01
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet site, economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control, software








C_2021040EN.01000101.xml










5.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10085 — Clearlake Capital Group/Siris Capital Group/Endurance/Web.com)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 40/01)
On 29 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 32021M10085. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-62/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — GGEW v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01004002.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/40






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — GGEW v Commission
(Case T-62/21)
(2021/C 138/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.
Case T-60/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Naturstrom v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01003901.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/39






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Naturstrom v Commission
(Case T-60/21)
(2021/C 138/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Naturstrom AG (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.