do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (EU) 2021/603 of 9 April 2021 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belgium, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2021127EN.01004401.xml










14.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 127/44








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/603
of 9 April 2021
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/852 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the Committee of the Regions (1),


Having regard to the proposal from the Belgian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.












(2)


On 26 March 2020 the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/511 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(3)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Willem-Frederik SCHILTZ.












(4)


The Belgian government has proposed Ms Gwendolyn RUTTEN, who holds a regional electoral mandate as a member of the Vlaams Parlement (Flemish parliament), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:






—


Ms Gwendolyn RUTTEN, Member of a Regional Assembly: Vlaams Parlement.






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




Done at Brussels, 9 April 2021.


For the Council


The President

A. P. ZACARIAS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 13.

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/511 of 26 March 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 113, 8.4.2020, p. 18).
Case C-230/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, family relationship, family reunification, marriage, married person, refugee, unaccompanied child








C_2021263EN.01000701.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat
(Case C-230/21)
(2021/C 263/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Should EU law, in particular Article 2(f), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a), of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) be interpreted as meaning that a refugee who is an ‘unaccompanied minor’, and who resides in a Member State, must be ‘unmarried’ under her national law in order to enjoy the right to family reunification with relatives in the direct ascending line?










2.


If so, can a refugee minor whose marriage contracted abroad is not recognised for public policy reasons be regarded as an ‘unaccompanied minor’ within the meaning of Articles 2(f) and 10(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Case T-188/21: Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R.H. Investment (MALLE)
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, audiovisual production, broadcasting, cultural event, recording, registered trade mark, sporting event, television, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01005401.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/54






Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R.H. Investment (MALLE)
(Case T-188/21)
(2021/C 217/69)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Jörg Lück (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: L. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R.H. Investment UG (limited liability company) (Erlangen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MALLE — EU trade mark No 2 631 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 in Case R 1393/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in conjunction with the decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 May 2020;










—


order the intervener to pay all the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-229/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — Le Port de Bruxelles v Infrabel SA and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: harbour installation, inland waterway transport, maintenance, rail network, road network, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network








C_2021217EN.01003102.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — Le Port de Bruxelles v Infrabel SA and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA
(Case C-229/21)
(2021/C 217/42)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Le Port de Bruxelles, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Respondent: Infrabel SA

Interested parties: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Le Port de Bruxelles, Lineas SA

Question referred

Where an inland port — which forms part of the core network — is already connected to the road and to the rail network, does Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, (1) construed in isolation or in conjunction with other provisions of that regulation, lay down an obligation to keep and to maintain both those links or an obligation to refrain from removing one of them, even merely by failing to maintain it?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 348, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 8 April 2021 2021/C 121/06
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021121EN.01004801.xml










9.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/48






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 April 2021
(2021/C 121/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1873 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,71 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86290 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2073 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1021 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0780 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,875 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5513 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9198 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,6799 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5539 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4947 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2356 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6855 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5916 




KRW


South Korean won


1 324,91 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2677 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7749 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5835 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 257,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9125 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,713 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,4618 




THB


Thai baht


37,347 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6545 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9497 




INR


Indian rupee


88,5885 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9489 — Air Canada/Transat) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 121/05
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, merger control, parent company, tourism








C_2021121EN.01004701.xml










9.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/47






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9489 — Air Canada/Transat)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 121/05)
On 15 April 2020, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 25 Mai 2020, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings (3) under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. On 2 April 2021, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification and demonstrated that it abandoned the concentration.


(1)  OJ C 131, 22.04.2020, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(3)  OJ C 180, 29.05.2020, p. 1.
Case C-233/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2021 by Germann Avocats LLC against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2021 in Case T-352/18, Germann Avocats LLC v European Commission
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: abuse of power, comparative study, cultural pluralism, damages, equal treatment, qualitative analysis, rights of the defence, tendering, trade union, transparency in decision-making








C_2021320EN.01001501.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/15






Appeal brought on 9 April 2021 by Germann Avocats LLC against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2021 in Case T-352/18, Germann Avocats LLC v European Commission
(Case C-233/21 P)
(2021/C 320/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Germann Avocats LLC (represented by: N. Scandamis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


confirm points 24 to 48 of the contested order fully rejecting the Commission's objection of inadmissibility;










—


for the rest, fully set aside the contested order;










—


annul pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Commission’s decision contained in an undated letter received on 2 April 2018 rejecting the joint tender submitted by the Appellant for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042; OJ/S S215 — 09/11/2017 — 2017/S 215-446067);










—


order the Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1;










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and in any event










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant advances the following pleas in support of its appeal:
First, manifest distortion of facts and errors of law in relation to the misuse of powers, as well as violation of the principles of equality of arms and the right to be heard.
Second, infringement of the duty to state reasons and manifest errors of assessment.
Third, misuse of powers by infringement of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty, sound administration and good faith.
Fourth, misuse of powers by infringement of the principle of transparency and protection of legitimate expectations regarding competition.
Case C-227/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 April 2021 — ‘HA.EN.’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, financial solvency, real property, tax relief








C_2021242EN.01001202.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 April 2021 — ‘HA.EN.’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija
(Case C-227/21)
(2021/C 242/16)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘HA.EN.’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, to be interpreted as prohibiting or not prohibiting a practice of national authorities under which the right of a taxable person to deduct input VAT is denied where that person, when acquiring items of immovable property, knew (or should have known) that the supplier, due to his insolvency, would not pay (or would not be able to pay) the output VAT into the State budget?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-415/19: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2021 — Laroni v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected for Italian constituencies — Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Resolution No 14/2018, on pensions — Change in the amount of pensions for Members of the Italian national Parliament — Corresponding change, by the European Parliament, in the amount of pensions for certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy — Death of the applicant — Proceedings not resumed by the successors — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Member of Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, equal treatment, pension scheme, regions of Italy








C_2021228EN.01002901.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/29






Order of the General Court of 9 April 2021 — Laroni v Parliament
(Case T-415/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected for Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Resolution No 14/2018, on pensions - Change in the amount of pensions for Members of the Italian national Parliament - Corresponding change, by the European Parliament, in the amount of pensions for certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy - Death of the applicant - Proceedings not resumed by the successors - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 228/39)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Nereo Laroni (Venice, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the note of 11 April 2019 of the Parliament concerning adjustment of the amount of the pension which the applicant receives following the entry into force on 1 January 2019 of Resolution No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.