do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/579 of 8 April 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 on Union support for activities leading up to the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, coronavirus disease, epidemic, international conference, international convention, non-proliferation of arms, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear safety, nuclear weapon, the EU's international role




L_2021123EN.01002101.xml










9.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 123/21








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/579
of 8 April 2021
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 on Union support for activities leading up to the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28(1) and 31(1) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 April 2019 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 (1).












(2)


On 29 June 2020 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/906 (2), which amended Decision (CFSP) 2019/615.












(3)


Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 provides for a 24-month implementation period, beginning on the date of conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3) thereof, for the activities referred to in Article 1 thereof (‘the implementation period’).












(4)


The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) has requested an additional extension of the implementation period until 15 October 2021 because of the worldwide COVID-19 crisis and the temporary suspension of the activities referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/615.












(5)


The activities referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 can be continued until 15 October 2021 without any consequences as regards financial resources.












(6)


Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 5 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/615, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:


‘2.   This Decision shall expire on 15 October 2021.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 8 April 2021.


For the Council


The President

A. P. ZACARIAS
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 of 15 April 2019 on Union support for activities leading up to the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (OJ L 105, 16.4.2019, p. 25).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/906 of 29 June 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/615 on Union support for activities leading up to the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (OJ L 207, 30.6.2020, p. 36).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10159 — Infosys/Daimler (Certain Assets and Personnel)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 132/01
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology, merger control, provision of services








C_2021132EN.01000101.xml










15.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10159 — Infosys/Daimler (Certain Assets and Personnel))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 132/01)
On 8 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 32021M10159. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/596 of 8 April 2021 amending Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the officially brucellosis-free status of Croatia in relation to bovine herds (notified under document C(2021) 2260) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, brucellosis, cattle, health control, intra-EU trade, veterinary inspection








L_2021128EN.01000101.xml










14.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 128/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2021/596
of 8 April 2021
         
amending Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the officially brucellosis-free status of Croatia in relation to bovine herds


(notified under document C(2021) 2260)


(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), and in particular paragraph 7 of Annex A.II thereto,

Whereas:







(1)


Directive 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals. It lays down the conditions whereby a Member State or regions thereof may be recognised as officially brucellosis-free as regards bovine herds.












(2)


Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2003/467/EC (2) provides that the Member States listed in Chapter 1 of Annex II thereto are declared officially brucellosis-free as regards bovine herds.












(3)


Croatia has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance for the whole territory of that Member State with the conditions laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC in order to be recognised as officially brucellosis-free as regards bovine herds.












(4)


Following the evaluation of that supporting documentation, Croatia should be recognised as officially free of brucellosis as regards bovine herds and duly listed in Chapter 1 of Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC.












(5)


Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(6)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 8 April 2021.


For the Commission

Stella KYRIAKIDES
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 1977/64.

(2)  Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis, and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 74).




ANNEX
In Chapter 1 of Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC, the following entry for Croatia is inserted after the entry for France:







‘HR


Croatia’
Case T-195/21: Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Klymenko v Council
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal basis, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021206EN.01004001.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/40






Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Klymenko v Council
(Case T-195/21)
(2021/C 206/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko admissible;




in so far as concerns the applicant,






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action for annulment against Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts concern him, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons with particular regard to the reference in the acts to the justification of the measure and to the verifications carried out in relation to observance of the rights of the defence and effective judicial protection.










2.


Second plea, alleging an error of assessment in the case and misuse of power, in that the applicant has provided evidence demonstrating the lack of a sufficient factual basis such as to ground any criminal proceedings as well as evidence of the violation of fundamental rights, from which the Council fails to draw any conclusions.










3.


Third plea, alleging violation of fundamental rights, in particular of observance of the rights of the defence, of the right to effective judicial protection and of the right to equality of arms.










4.


Fourth pea, alleging a lack of legal basis, in that Article 29 TEU cannot be the legal basis for the restrictive measure taken against the applicant.
Case T-185/21: Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка)
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, fruit, meat, non-alcoholic beverage, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2021242EN.01004901.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/49






Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка)
(Case T-185/21)
(2021/C 242/70)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Хозяйка — EU trade mark No 12 344 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 in Case R 2717/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for revocation No 42 860 C (EU trade mark No 12 344 529) with award of costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-274/19: Order of the General Court of 8 April 2021 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Declaration of surrender of the contested trade mark — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, consultancy, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021252EN.01002301.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/23






Order of the General Court of 8 April 2021 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)
(Case T-274/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Declaration of surrender of the contested trade mark - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 252/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 1685/2017-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between Target Ventures Group and Target Partners.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Target Ventures Group Ltd and Target Partners GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-228/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2021 — Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino v CZA
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, foreign national, resettlement of persons, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2021217EN.01003101.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2021 — Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino v CZA
(Case C-228/21)
(2021/C 217/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

Respondent: CZA

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 4 of [Regulation (EU) No 604/2013] (1) be interpreted as meaning that an action may be brought under Article 27 of [that regulation] against a transfer decision adopted by a Member State, using the mechanism provided for in Article 26 of [that regulation] and on the basis of the obligation to take back laid down in Article 18(1)(b) thereof, solely because of a failure to deliver the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) of [that] regulation by the Member State which adopted the transfer decision?










2.


Should Article 27 of [that regulation], read in conjunction with recitals 18 and 19 and Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where it has been determined that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 4 [of that regulation], an effective remedy requires that the court adopt a decision annulling the transfer decision?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 above is in the negative, should Article 27 of [that regulation], read in conjunction with recitals 18 and 19 and Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where it has been determined that there has been a failure to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 4 [of that regulation], an effective remedy requires that the court verify the significance of that failure to fulfil obligations in the light of the circumstances alleged by the applicant and permits confirmation of the transfer decision in all cases where there are no grounds for adopting a transfer decision with different content?






(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).
Case T-184/21: Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин)
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, fruit, meat, non-alcoholic beverage, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2021242EN.01004802.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/48






Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин)
(Case T-184/21)
(2021/C 242/69)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Хозяин — EU trade mark No 12 244 679

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 2729/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity No 19 847 C (EU trade mark No 12 244 679) with an award of costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Notice of open competition 2021/C 120/02
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, administrator, competition (EU), job vacancy, recruitment, structural adjustment








C_2021120EN.01000201.xml










8.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/2






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2021/C 120/02)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AD/391/21 – EXPERTS IN TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO MEMBER STATES’ STRUCTURAL REFORMS AND EXPERTS IN THE SCHENGEN ACQUIS (AD 7)
The Notice of Competition is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 120 A of 8 April 2021.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 April 2021 2021/C 120/01
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021120EN.01000101.xml










8.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 April 2021
(2021/C 120/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1884 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,56 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86065 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2360 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1044 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0535 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,919 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,68 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5756 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9185 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,7227 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5581 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4982 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2527 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6907 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5917 




KRW


South Korean won


1 328,05 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2803 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7761 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5763 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 304,71 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9099 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,965 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,3359 




THB


Thai baht


37,286 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6440 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,0091 




INR


Indian rupee


88,3675 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-496/20: Order of the General Court of 8 April 2021 — CRII-GEN and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant protection products — Active substance glyphosate — Request for review for the purpose of withdrawing or amending the approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Rejection — Act not open to challenge)
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: herbicide, market approval, plant health legislation








C_2021228EN.01002902.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/29






Order of the General Court of 8 April 2021 — CRII-GEN and Others v Commission
(Case T-496/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Active substance glyphosate - Request for review for the purpose of withdrawing or amending the approval - Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Rejection - Act not open to challenge)
(2021/C 228/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRII-GEN) (Paris, France), and the 6 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, G. Gattinara, I. Nagalis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 June 2020 rejecting the applicants’ request, made under Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1), to withdraw or amend the approval of active substance glyphosate.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Bayer Agriculture BV.










3.


The Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRII-GEN) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Bayer Agriculture relating to its application for leave to intervene.










4.


Bayer Agriculture shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.