do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Calls for proposals and related activities under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027) 2021/C 117/05
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, innovation, invitation to tender, research and development








C_2021117EN.01000501.xml










6.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 117/5






Calls for proposals and related activities under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027)
(2021/C 117/05)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of actions under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027).
The Commission has adopted the above mentioned work programme by Decision C(2021) 1940 of 31 March 2021.
The actions are subject to the adoption of the Council Decision establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, and the Regulation establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination by the legislative authority without significant modifications. They are also subject to a positive opinion or lack of objection by the committees established by the Council Decision establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe as well as the availability of the appropriations provided for in the draft general budget of the Union for 2021 and 2022, following the adoption of that budget by the budgetary authority or as provided for in the system of provisional twelfths. The Commission reserves its right to cancel or make corrigendum to the actions.
Confirmation that these conditions have been met will be announced on the European Commission Funding & Tenders Portal website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/horizon).
This work programme, including deadlines and budgets for the actions, are available through the above-mentioned Funding & Tenders Portal along with information on the modalities of the actions, and guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Funding & Tenders Portal.
Case C-215/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Zulima v Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos E.F.C. S.A.U.
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, consumer protection, judicial review, legal expenses, unfair terms of contract








C_2021320EN.01001301.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Zulima v Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos E.F.C.  S.A.U.
(Case C-215/21)
(2021/C 320/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zulima

Defendant: Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos E.F.C. S.A.U.

Question referred

Where a consumer raises a complaint against an unfair term under Directive 93/13/EC (1) and an out-of-court offer to settle is made, Article 22 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law of Civil Procedure) has the effect of compelling the consumer to bear the costs of the proceedings without regard to the seller’s or supplier’s prior conduct in having failed to heed the letters of formal notice [issued to him]. Do those Spanish rules of procedure constitute a significant obstacle capable of dissuading a consumer from exercising the right to effective judicial review of the potentially unfair nature of a contractual term contrary to the principle of effectiveness and Article[s] 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10167 — Continental/Light control units business of OSRAM Continental) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 125/01
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2021125EN.01000101.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10167 — Continental/Light control units business of OSRAM Continental)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 125/01)
On 6 April 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 32021M10167. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10211 — L Catterton/Birkenstock) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 117/06
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, cosmetics industry, economic concentration, footwear industry, merger control








C_2021117EN.01000601.xml










6.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 117/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10211 — L Catterton/Birkenstock)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 117/06)

1.   
On 25 March 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:






—


L Catterton (USA),










—


Birkenstock (Germany)




L Catterton acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Birkenstock.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


L Catterton is a consumer-focused private equity company whose portfolio companies operate in the retail and restaurant business, the food and beverage business, consumer service and consumer product businesses including the production and sale of bedding, clothing and accessories, cosmetics and fragrance products.










—


Birkenstock is a German company that is mainly active in the supply of Birkenstocks, a German brand of sandals, and other shoes.






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:
M.10211 — L Catterton/Birkenstock
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.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 April 2021 2021/C 117/04
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021117EN.01000401.xml










6.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 117/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

1 April 2021
(2021/C 117/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1746 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4379 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85195 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2753 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1099 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0408 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,085 




HUF


Hungarian forint


361,84 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6089 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9088 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,5903 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5500 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4787 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1346 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6806 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5801 




KRW


South Korean won


1 328,36 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2074 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7195 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5705 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 068,23 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8693 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,076 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,5944 




THB


Thai baht


36,730 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6149 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,8792 




INR


Indian rupee


86,2275 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-217/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 April 2021 — AGRO — EKO 2013 EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, farmer, financial control, payment








C_2021242EN.01001001.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 April 2021 — AGRO — EKO 2013 EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
(Case C-217/21)
(2021/C 242/13)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AGRO — EKO 2013 EOOD

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Questions referred







1.


Does the term ‘payment’ used in Article 75(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy signify the conclusion of the procedure initiated on the basis of a payment claim?










2.


Does the actual receipt of the amount claimed by a farmer equate to a positive decision by the paying agency on the application for activation of payment entitlements or does the non-receipt of funds in the case of publicly notified payments for the measure concerned constitute a refusal of the claimed payment entitlements where the person has not been notified of the continuation of the procedure by way of new checks?










3.


Does the time limit under Article 75(1) of Regulation 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 require the Member States to verify the eligibility conditions before its expiry, and can that verification continue only exceptionally?










4.


Does failure to comply with the time limit under Article 75(1) of Regulation 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 constitute a tacit refusal to pay aid where a farmer has not been notified of the carrying out of supplementary checks and there is no written document in relation thereto?






(1)  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).
Case T-201/21: Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, access to EU information, food supplement, inorganic chemical product, market approval, vitamin








C_2021217EN.01006201.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/62






Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission
(Case T-201/21)
(2021/C 217/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Covington & Burling (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) and Bart Van Vooren (Meise, Belgium) (represented by: P. Diaz Gavier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 12 March 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents (1) under the Transparency Regulation;










—


order the Commission to grant access to the requested documents immediately; and










—


order the Commission to pay Covington’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation (2) to justify its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, even if Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation applied, or any other ground of Article 4 thereof, the Commission has failed to demonstrate how the requested documents met the requirements.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on the Comitology Regulation (3) to support its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees to support its refusal; and










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates general principles of transparency and undermines the democratic legitimacy of implementing acts.






(1)  Editorial note: The requested documents concern a comitology procedure and, in particular, documents relating to the voting record of certain Member States with regard to the draft Commission Regulation amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives.

(2)  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).

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10199 — Goldman Sachs/Advania) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 136/02
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, cloud computing, economic concentration, information technology, investment, investment company, merger control, provision of services, securities








C_2021136EN.01000301.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10199 — Goldman Sachs/Advania)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 136/02)
On 6 April 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 32021M10199. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-214/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, cooperative, emergency medical treatment, equal treatment, non-profit organisation, public procurement, services contract, transport of patients, voluntary organisation








C_2021289EN.01002402.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza
(Case C-214/21)
(2021/C 289/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale

Defendant and respondent: Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

Intervener: ANPAS — Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze Odv

Question referred

Does Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) — together with recital 28 of that directive — preclude national legislation which provides that contracts for the provision of emergency ambulance transport services may be directly awarded, on a preferential basis, solely to voluntary organisations — provided that they have been registered for at least six months in the national third sector register, belong to a network of associations and are accredited under the relevant sectoral regional legislation (if any) and on the condition that such an award ensures that the service can be provided within a framework of effective contributions to social goals, which pursues objectives of solidarity, in an economically efficient and appropriate manner and in accordance with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination — to the exclusion of other non-profit organisations, and more specifically social cooperatives, such as non-profit-making social enterprises, including social cooperatives which offer rebates to their members in relation to activities of general interest, within the meaning of Article 3(2a) of Legislative Decree No 112/2017?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case C-213/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani
Date: 2021-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, cooperative, emergency medical treatment, equal treatment, non-profit organisation, public procurement, services contract, transport of patients, voluntary organisation








C_2021289EN.01002401.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani
(Case C-213/21)
(2021/C 289/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale

Defendant and respondent: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani

Question referred

Does Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) — together with recital 28 of that directive — preclude national legislation which provides that contracts for the provision of emergency ambulance transport services may be directly awarded, on a preferential basis, solely to voluntary organisations — provided that they have been registered for at least six months in the national third sector register, belong to a network of associations and are accredited under the relevant sectoral regional legislation (if any) and on the condition that such an award ensures that the service can be provided within a framework of effective contributions to social goals, which pursues objectives of solidarity, in an economically efficient and appropriate manner and in accordance with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination — to the exclusion of other non-profit organisations, and more specifically social cooperatives, such as non-profit-making social enterprises?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).