do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 February 2021 2021/C 52/02
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021052EN.01000201.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 February 2021
(2021/C 52/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2108 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,15 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87753 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0818 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0803 




ISK


Iceland króna


155,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2850 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,753 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,87 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4999 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8746 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,5010 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5666 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5418 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3868 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6840 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6066 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,98 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7362 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8207 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5710 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 936,37 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8947 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,181 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,8055 




THB


Thai baht


36,215 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5302 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2515 




INR


Indian rupee


87,8770 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-98/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2021 — Finanzamt R v W-GmbH
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, economic activity, holding company, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2021182EN.01003201.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 February 2021 — Finanzamt R v W-GmbH
(Case C-98/21)
(2021/C 182/45)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt (Tax Office) R

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: W-GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Under circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is Article 168(a) in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted in such a way that a managing holding that supplies taxable output services for subsidiaries is entitled to deduction, also for services that it obtains from third parties and contributes to the subsidiaries in return for the grant of a share in the general profit, even though the obtained inputs are not directly and immediately linked to the holding’s own transactions but instead to the (largely) tax-exempt activities of the subsidiaries, the obtained input services are not included in the price of the taxable transactions (supplied to the subsidiaries), and they do not form part of the general cost components of the holding’s own economic activity?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does it constitute abuse of rights in the sense of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, if a managing holding is involved as an ‘intermediary’ in obtaining services for subsidiaries in such a way that it obtains services itself for which the subsidiaries would have no entitlement to deduction if services were obtained directly, contributes these services to the subsidiaries in return for participation in its profit, and then claims full deduction on the basis of the inputs on the grounds of its position as a managing holding; or can acting as an intermediary in this way be justified on grounds that fall outside the scope of tax law, even though full deduction is in itself in conflict with the system and would result in a competitive advantage for holding structures over single-tier companies?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-92/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 15 February 2021 — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, detention before trial, judicial review, removal, return migration, right of asylum








C_2021138EN.01002101.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 15 February 2021 — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)
(Case C-92/21)
(2021/C 138/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VW

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Questions referred

Is a remedy, provided for by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)

Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an appeal against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Opinion C-1/20: Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Energy Charter, arbitration, international arbitration, investment








C_2021053EN.01001501.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/15






Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
(Opinion C-1/20)
(2021/C 53/18)
Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux, M. Van Regemorter, S. Baeyens, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Is the draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty compatible with the Treaties, and in particular Article 19 TEU and Article 344 TFEU:






—


so far as concerns Article 26 of that agreement, if that article may be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism?










—


in so far as, if Article 26 of that agreement were to be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism, that agreement does not lay down a specific, express rule or an explicit disconnection clause, in particular in the definitions of investment and investor in Article 1 of the envisaged agreement, providing for the non-applicability of the general mechanism of Article 26 between the Member States?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10130 — APG/Arcus/PSP/Alpha Trains) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 61/01
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, vehicle on rails, vehicle rental








C_2021061EN.01000101.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10130 — APG/Arcus/PSP/Alpha Trains)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 61/01)
On 15 February 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 32021M10130. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-93/21 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2021 by easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-858/19, easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, market research, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021252EN.01000702.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/7






Appeal brought on 15 February 2021 by easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-858/19, easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-93/21 P)
(2021/C 252/12)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt, and S. E. Sullivan, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH
By order of 20 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10072 — Sojitz/Eneos/Edenvale Solar Park) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 66/06
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, goods and services, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, power plant, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2021066EN.01003601.xml










26.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/36






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10072 — Sojitz/Eneos/Edenvale Solar Park)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 66/06)
On 15 February 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 32021M10072. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-95/21: Action brought on 15 February 2021 — Portugal v Commission
Date: 2021-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, principle of legal certainty, regional aid, rights of the defence, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2021138EN.01004701.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/47






Action brought on 15 February 2021 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-95/21)
(2021/C 138/63)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa, M. J. Marques, L. Borrego and A. M. Soares de Freitas, acting as Agents, and by M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should






—


order that the documents in the administrative procedure that gave rise to the adoption of the contested decision be added to the case file, in the terms sought by the present application;










—


annul Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of European Commission Decision of 4 December 2020, C(2020)8550 final, ‘on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III’;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging an error in law, on the ground that the measure at issue was of general, and not selective, application and therefore did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.










2.


Second plea, alleging that, in any event, the Commission failed to demonstrate that the criterion of distortion of competition and of effects on trade between Member States had been met.










3.


Third plea, alleging an error in law concerning the application of Article 108 TFEU and Articles 21 to 23 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, on the ground that the aid in question was existing aid.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging an error of law in the decision, on the ground that Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) Regime III was implemented in accordance with the Commission’s decisions of 2007 and 2013, and with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging an error as to the assumptions of fact in the decision and/or a failure to state reasons, on the ground that the requirements of the tax scheme and the supervision thereof by the national authorities were suitable for the purposes of monitoring MFZ Regime III.










6.


Sixth plea, alleging an error as to the assumptions of fact in the decision and/or a failure to state reasons, on the ground that the Portuguese Republic carried out checks as to the requirement that jobs be created/maintained.










7.


Seventh plea, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law. The applicant relies, in particular, on infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of legal certainty and sound administration, and a failure to state reasons.