do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-588/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Generics (UK) Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Pharmaceutical products — Market for antidepressants (citalopram) — Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines — Article 101 TFEU — Potential competition — Restriction by object — Characterisation — Calculation of the amount of the fine)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, generic drug, market access, patent law, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2021206EN.01000301.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Generics (UK) Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-588/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressants (citalopram) - Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)
(2021/C 206/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Generics (UK) Ltd (represented by: I. Vandenborre, advocaat, T. Goetz, Rechtsanwalt, and M. Brealey QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendent: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes QC, and subsequently D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 103/06
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, cultural event, culture industry, epidemic








C_2021103EN.01000601.xml










25.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/6






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 103/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


14 December 2020




Case No


85921




Decision No


159/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Amendments for the period 1 September to 31 December 2020 to the compensation scheme for the cancellation or postponement of cultural events




Legal basis


The amendments to the compensation scheme and the increased budget for the period 1 September to 31 December 2020 is based on the budget proposition Prop 51 S (2020-2021), subject to Parliament’s approval
The national legal framework for the amendments to the compensation scheme for eligible costs suffered in September is an amending regulation to Regulation of 4 November 2020 No 2250 on a temporary compensation scheme in connection with cancellations, closings or postponements of events planned held in September 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak
The national legal framework for the amendments to the compensation scheme for eligible costs suffered in the period 1 October to 31 December 2020 is an amending regulation to Regulation of 4 November 2020 No 2245 a temporary compensation scheme in connection with cancellations or closings of events planned in October to December 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak




Type of measure


Scheme and increase of budget




Objective


To compensate for eligible losses caused by the cancellation, partial cancellation or postponement of cultural events to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus




Form of aid


Grants




Budget


The approved budget of 200 million for the period 1 September to 31 December 2020 of the existing scheme will be increased by NOK 146 109 153 , so that the total budget for the period constitutes NOK 346 109 153 




Duration


1 September 2020 - 31 December 2020




Economic sectors


Culture




Name and address of the granting authority


Arts Council Norway
Postboks 4808  Nydalen
N-0422 Oslo
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 March 2021 2021/C 103/03
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021103EN.01000301.xml










25.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 March 2021
(2021/C 103/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1825 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,60 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86250 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1635 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1068 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1563 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,206 




HUF


Hungarian forint


364,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6280 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8880 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,4009 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5532 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4884 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1863 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6963 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5917 




KRW


South Korean won


1 338,12 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5248 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7133 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5730 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 082,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8843 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,468 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,2013 




THB


Thai baht


36,658 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5258 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,5236 




INR


Indian rupee


85,8585 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation 2021/C 103/05
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: Finland, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency








C_2021103EN.01000501.xml










25.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/5






New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2021/C 103/05)




National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Finland

Subject of commemoration: Journalism and Open Communication Supporting the Finnish Democracy

Description of the design: The figures depicted in the inner part of the coin can be interpreted as stylized human figures made up from and entwined in a ribbon-like net. The outer sides of the inner part of the coin bear the lettering ‘JOURNALISMI JOURNALISTIK’. The bottom of the inner part bears the lettering ‘2021 FI’ preceded by the Finnish mint mark.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 800 000

Date of issue: Spring 2021


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-186/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 March 2021 — Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, asylum seeker, foreign national, return migration, right of asylum








C_2021206EN.01002001.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 March 2021 — Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-186/21)
(2021/C 206/25)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J. A.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 8(3)(d) of the Reception Directive II (1) be construed as meaning that the term ‘including’ expressly includes, among the objective criteria, the fact that ‘[the person concerned has] already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure’?










2.


If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 8(3)(d) of the Reception Directive II be construed as meaning that, in the circumstances set out above, detention is permissible only on the basis of predetermined objective criteria and of a prior finding that the applicant for international protection has already had the opportunity to lodge an application for international protection, so that it can be concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that that application was made merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision?






(1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1812 of 1 December 2020 laying down rules on the online data exchange and the notification of EU type-approvals under Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Official Journal of the European Union L 404 of 2 December 2020)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU Member State, approval, exchange of information, information system, motor vehicle, technical specification, technical standard, vehicle parts








L_2021104EN.01005501.xml










25.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 104/55







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1812 of 1 December 2020 laying down rules on the online data exchange and the notification of EU type-approvals under Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 404 of 2 December 2020
)


On page 6, in Article 2(c):
for:

'a fine grained access control system that makes it possible to grant, read or write permissions for the access of authorised parties.',

read:

'a fine grained access control system that makes it possible to grant read or write permissions for the access of authorised parties.'
Case C-152/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Slovanet a.s. (Appeal — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Slovak market for broadband internet access services — Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop — Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop — Indispensability of the access — Imputability of a subsidiary’s conduct to the parent company — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, domestic market, dominant position, market access, parent company, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), subsidiary, telecommunications








C_2021206EN.01000801.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/8






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Slovanet a.s.
(Case C-152/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Slovak market for broadband internet access services - Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop - Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop - Indispensability of the access - Imputability of a subsidiary’s conduct to the parent company - Rights of the defence)
(2021/C 206/09)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG (represented by: D. Schroeder and K. Apel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, M. Farley, L. Malferrari, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents), Slovanet a.s. (represented by: P. Tisaj, advokát)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case C-193/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2021 by RY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2021 in Case T-824/19, RY v Commission
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: full-time employment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of employment








C_2022064EN.01000502.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/5






Appeal brought on 25 March 2021 by RY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2021 in Case T-824/19, RY v Commission
(Case C-193/21 P)
(2022/C 64/07)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: RY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 9 December 2021, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.
Case C-601/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Pharmaceutical products — Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) — Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines — Article 101 TFEU — Potential competition — Restriction by object — Characterisation — Calculation of the amount of the fine)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, generic drug, market access, patent law, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2021206EN.01000401.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-601/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) - Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)
(2021/C 206/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd (represented by: C. Firth, S. Kon and C. Humpe, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, and by G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery, and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Arrow Group ApS and Arrow Generics Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement 2021/C 103/10
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, e-Health








C_2021103EN.01001101.xml










25.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/11






No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2021/C 103/10)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:






Date of adoption of the decision


9 December 2020




Case No


85916




Decision No


144/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Municipal eHealth




Form of aid


No aid




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-185/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2021 by Turk Hava Yollari AO against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-382/19, Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, air transport, carriage of passengers, education, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2021320EN.01001201.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/12






Appeal brought on 25 March 2021 by Turk Hava Yollari AO against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-382/19, Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife)
(Case C-185/21 P)
(2021/C 320/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Turk Hava Yollari AO (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Sky Ltd
By order of 29 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Turk Hava Yollari AO should bear its own costs.
Case C-565/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Armando Carvalho and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Appeal — Action for annulment and for damages — Environment — 2030 climate and energy package — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of individual concern)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: adaptation to climate change, association, environmental law, fundamental rights, greenhouse gas, indigenous population, liability, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions, rights of the defence








C_2021206EN.01001101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/11






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Armando Carvalho and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
(Case C-565/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment and for damages - Environment - 2030 climate and energy package - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of individual concern)
(2021/C 206/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Armando Carvalho, Diogo Carvalho, Ildebrando Conceição, Alfredo Sendim, Joaquim Caxeiro, Renaud Feschet, Guylaine Feschet, Gabriel Feschet, Maurice Feschet, Geneviève Gassin, Roba Waku Guya, Fadhe Hussein Tache, Sado Guyo, Issa Guyo, Jibril Guyo, Adanoor Guyo, Mohammed Guyo, Petru Vlad, Ana Tricu, Petru Arin Vlad, Maria Ioana Vlad, Andrei Nicolae Vlad, Giorgio Davide Elter, Sara Burland, Soulail Elter, Alice Elter, Rosa Elter, Maria Elter, Maike Recktenwald, Michael Recktenwald, Lueke Recktenwald, Petero Qaloibau, Melania Cironiceva, Katarina Dimoto, Petero Jnr Qaloibau, Elisabeta Tokalau and Sáminuorra (represented by: G. Winter, Professor, H. Leith, Barrister, and by R. Verheyen, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Peternel, C. Ionescu Dima and A. Tamás, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: European Commission (represented by: A.C. Becker and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Armando Carvalho and 36 other appellants whose names are set out in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.