do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-253/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2021289EN.01002602.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE
(Case C-253/21)
(2021/C 289/37)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents: FI, RE

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a flight lands at an airport of arrival other than that for which the booking was made, which is not located in the same city, town or region as the airport of arrival for which the booking was made, and the passengers are subsequently transferred from that airport by coach to the airport of arrival for which the original booking was made, which the passengers reach with a delay in arrival of less than three hours, there is a cancellation of the flight?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-256/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01002901.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen
(Case C-256/21)
(2021/C 278/41)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KP

Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

Question referred

Must Article 124(d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the EU trade mark court has jurisdiction to rule on the invalidity of an EU trade mark asserted by a counterclaim within the meaning of Article 128 of that regulation even after the action for infringement based on that EU trade mark for the purposes of Article 124(a) has been validly withdrawn?


(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10222 — CDPQ/Telefónica/FiBrasil JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 215/02
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2021215EN.01000201.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10222 — CDPQ/Telefónica/FiBrasil JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 215/02)
On 22 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 32021M10222. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 141/06
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic








C_2021141EN.01000601.xml










22.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/6






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 141/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


15 December 2020




Case No


85870




Decision No


164/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Region


Whole territory of Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Amendment and prolongation of the COVID-19 Grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover




Legal basis


Act on a temporary grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Compensate for damages to undertakings caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to secure employment and ensure a faster recovery of the economy after the crisis




Form of aid


Grants




Budget


Estimated maximum budgetary implication of NOK 5 billion for the prolongation period to 28 February 2021. This comes in addition to an estimated maximum budgetary implication of NOK 30 billion for the period from 1 March to 31 August 2020.




Intensity


100 %




Duration


The prolonged scheme covers losses from 1 September 2020 to 28 February 2021 included




Economic sectors


All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, companies engaged in production, transmission, distribution and trade of electric power, financial institutions and companies whose main purpose is investment activities, and private kindergartens and airlines




Name and address of the granting authority







The Brønnøysund Register Centre




Brønnøysundregistrene




Postboks 900




8910 Brønnøysund




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.) 21 April 2021 2021/C 141/01
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021141EN.01000101.xml










22.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 April 2021
(2021/C 141/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2007 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,80 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86250 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1513 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1026 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0423 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,893 




HUF


Hungarian forint


362,30 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5561 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9260 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,8156 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5554 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5137 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3209 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6726 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5971 




KRW


South Korean won


1 344,21 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1450 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8011 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5750 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 464,90 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9481 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,147 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,0836 




THB


Thai baht


37,666 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6869 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9052 




INR


Indian rupee


90,5955 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-264/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: defective product, labelling, producer's liability, product designation, subsidiary, trade mark








C_2021278EN.01003001.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips N.V.
(Case C-264/21)
(2021/C 278/42)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Respondent: Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Questions referred







1.


Does the concept of producer within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Product Liability Directive (1) presuppose that a person who puts his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or who has allowed them to be put on the product, also presents himself as the producer of the product in some other manner?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Based on what considerations is his presentation as a producer of the product to be evaluated? Is it relevant to that evaluation that the product was manufactured by a subsidiary of the trade mark proprietor and distributed by another subsidiary?






(1)  Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999 amending Council Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1999 L 141, p. 20).
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 141/03
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, VAT rate, control of State aid, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, motor vehicle industry, motor vehicle pollution, tax exemption








C_2021141EN.01000301.xml










22.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/3






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 141/03)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


16 December 2020




Case No


85854




Decision No


148/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Prolongation of the zero VAT rating for zero-emission vehicles 2021–2022




Legal basis


The VAT provisions are laid down in the Act on Value Added Tax of 19 June 2009 No 58 and the Regulation concerning Value Added Tax of 15 December 2009 No 1540.




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Environmental aid




Form of aid


Tax exemption




Budget


Around NOK 6.7 billion annually (estimate based on budgetary year 2020 tax expenditure)




Duration


1 January 2021 – 31 December 2022




Economic sectors


Manufacture of motor vehicles; Manufacture of batteries and accumulators; Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance




P. O Box 8008 Dep.




0030 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/
Case C-257/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v L.B.
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, equal treatment, night work, supplementary income, wage determination








C_2021297EN.01002201.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v L.B.
(Case C-257/21)
(2021/C 297/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: L.B.

Questions referred







1.


Does a collectively agreed rule implement Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if that collectively agreed rule provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work?










2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:Is a collectively agreed rule that provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if that rule is intended to compensate not only for the adverse effects on health caused by night work but also for the burden arising from the greater difficulty in planning for irregular night work?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 141/10
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, cultural event, epidemic, leisure, real estate business, trade event








C_2021141EN.01001001.xml










22.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/10






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 141/10)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


18 December 2020




Case No


85979




Decision No


168/20/COL




EFTA State


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Harpa tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ohf.




Legal basis


As for the State, the State budget act for 2020 and budget bill for 2021. As for the City of Reykjavík, the revised city budget and approved budget for 2021.




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Compensation for damage suffered as a direct consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the response measures adopted by the Icelandic Government as a result thereof.




Form of aid


Grant




Budget


ISK 400 million




Intensity


85,8 % (estimated)




Economic sectors


L68 – Real estate activities;
R93 – Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities;
N82.3 – Organisation of conventions and trade shows




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs




Arnarhvoli




101 Reykjavík




The City of Reykjavík




Ráðhúsið, Tjarnargötu 11




101 Reykjavík




ICELAND








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/
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10133 – ASTORG / NORDIC CAPITAL / NOVO / BIOCLINICA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 484/02
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: data processing, economic concentration, health care, holding company, investment company, medical research, merger control, provision of services, software








C_2021484EN.01000201.xml










2.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 484/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10133 – ASTORG / NORDIC CAPITAL / NOVO / BIOCLINICA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 484/02)
On 22 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 policy’ 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 32021M10133. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10211 — L Catterton/Birkenstock) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 256/02
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, cosmetics industry, economic concentration, footwear industry, merger control








C_2021256EN.01000201.xml










30.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10211 — L Catterton/Birkenstock)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 256/02)
On 22 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 32021M10211. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-572/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 211(6) — Authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products — Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers — Examination of the economic conditions — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 — Article 259 — European Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions — Article 263 TFEU — Act not open to challenge)
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU production, customs regulations, customs union, economic conditions, inward processing, iron and steel product








C_2021228EN.01000201.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission
(Case C-572/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 211(6) - Authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products - Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers - Examination of the economic conditions - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 - Article 259 - European Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions - Article 263 TFEU - Act not open to challenge)
(2021/C 228/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (represented by: M. Günes and L.C. Heinisch, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal in Case C-572/18 P;










2.


Orders thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2021 Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25 May 2006, p. 1.) 2021/C 141/04
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2021141EN.01000401.xml










22.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/4






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2021


Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1)


(2021/C 141/04)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.1.2021 –


1,50


- 0,61


0,34






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25 May 2006, p. 1.