do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Special report No 6/2021 Financial instruments in cohesion policy at closure of the 2007-2013 period: verification work yielded good results overall, but some errors remained 2021/C 164/03
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financial instrument, European Commission, audit, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, operation of the Institutions, operational programme








C_2021164EN.01000301.xml










4.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/3






Special report No 6/2021
Financial instruments in cohesion policy at closure of the 2007-2013 period: verification work yielded good results overall, but some errors remained
(2021/C 164/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 6/2021 ‘Financial instruments in cohesion policy at closure of the 2007-2013 period: verification work yielded good results overall, but some errors remained’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10242— Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 164/05
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: coffee, economic concentration, electronic commerce, household electrical appliance, marketing, mass media, merger control, printing, provision of services, retail trade








C_2021164EN.01000601.xml










4.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10242— Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 164/05)

1.   
On 26 April 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:






—


MWBS Beteiligungs GmbH (‘MWBS’, Germany), controlled by Melitta Unternehmensgruppe Bentz KG (‘Melitta’, Germany),










—


The Enabling Company GmbH (‘TEC’, Germany), controlled by Burda GmbH (‘Burda’, Germany), belonging to Hubert Burda Media Holding KG (‘Hubert Burda Media’, Germany),










—


Roast Market GmbH (‘Roast Market’, Germany).




Melitta and Hubert Burda Media acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Roast Market.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract of management.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Melitta: manufacture and supply of coffee, coffee making equipment and household products,










—


for Hubert Burda Media: active in media, eCommerce, printing, marketing, retail, shareholdings and service provision,










—


for Roast Market: a specialised online coffee retailer.






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.10242— Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market
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.
Special report 7/2021 EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost 2021/C 164/02
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU programme, satellite communications, satellite navigation, space policy, use of outer space








C_2021164EN.01000201.xml










4.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/2






Special report 7/2021
EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost
(2021/C 164/02)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report 7/2021 ‘EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case C-286/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ile-de-France, Martinique, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, infringement of EU law








C_2021252EN.01001901.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/19






Action brought on 4 May 2021 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-286/21)
(2021/C 252/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


first, declare that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the daily limit value for fine particulate matter (PM10) from 1 January 2005 in the Paris agglomeration and air quality zone (FR04A01/FR11ZAG01) and from 1 January 2005 until 2016 inclusive in the Martinique/Fort-de-France zone (FR39N10/FR02ZAR01), the French Republic has continuously failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive;










—


secondly, declare that the French Republic has failed, in those two zones from 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, read in conjunction with Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible.





Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards Paris, the daily limit value was not complied with uninterruptedly from 2005 until the latest data available, that is, in 2019. Furthermore, the compliance gap regarding the exceedances of the daily limit value in the Paris zone is substantial (since the number of exceedances is double the permitted number of exceedances) and has not improved since 2015. As regards the Martinique zone, the daily limit value was not complied with continuously until 2016 (with the exception of 2008).
In the two zones of Paris and Martinique, the limit values for PM10 were exceeded when the time limit for responding to the reasoned opinion expired. At that time, France should have established and notified plans. Analysis shows that France has not adopted such plans. The measures taken (at national and regional level) by France failed to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible, as required by the provisions of Directive 2008/50/EC.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.
Case T-822/19: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2021 — Asoliva and Anierac v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Classification into one of three categories of virgin olive oil — Implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: olive oil, product quality, quality control of agricultural products








C_2021252EN.01002401.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/24






Order of the General Court of 4 May 2021 — Asoliva and Anierac v Commission
(Case T-822/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Agriculture - Classification into one of three categories of virgin olive oil - Implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 252/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (Asoliva) (Madrid, Spain), Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (Anierac) (Madrid) (represented by V. Rodríguez Fuentes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, F. Castilla Contreras and M. Morales Puerta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1(1)(b) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1604 of 27 September 2019 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis (OJ 2019 L 250, p. 14).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (Asoliva) et Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (Anierac) shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case T-243/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Pšonka v Council
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, public prosecutor's department, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021263EN.01002701.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/27






Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Pšonka v Council
(Case T-243/21)
(2021/C 263/36)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


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, (1) 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, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation relate to the applicant;










—


Declare that the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration






—


The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property






—


The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.






—


The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.










(1)  OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 10181 — Entega/Viessmann/EMS/EPS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 164/04
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy grid, energy production, energy saving, energy supply, heating, merger control, smart technology








C_2021164EN.01000401.xml










4.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M. 10181 — Entega/Viessmann/EMS/EPS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 164/04)

1.   
On 26 April 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:






—


Entega AG (‘Entega’, Germany),










—


Viessmann Werke GmbH & Co. KG (‘Viessmann’, Germany),










—


Energy Market Solutions GmbH (‘EMS’, Germany) and










—


Energy Project Solutions GmbH (‘EPS’, Germany), both currently wholly owned by Viessmann via Digital Energy Solutions GmbH & Co. KGA (Germany).




Entega and Viessmann acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of EMS and Entega acquires sole control of EPS within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Entega is active in the business areas energy production, energy trading, energy supply, energy networks, public operational management and shared services, together with its subsidiaries,










—


Viessmann is active in manufacturing heating, industrial, and refrigeration systems including planning and implementation of efficient energy systems,










—


EMS provides household and commercial customised electricity products as well as smart service solutions for new energy market participants,










—


EPS offers consulting, planning and project management services to optimise the energy potential for companies and businesses.






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.



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.10181 - Entega/Viessmann/EMS/EPS
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’).
Case C-283/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2021 — VA v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child care, pension scheme, residence, social security legislation, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation








C_2021310EN.01001002.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2021 — VA v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
(Case C-283/21)
(2021/C 310/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VA

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

Intervener: RB

Questions referred







1.


Is under the legislation of the Netherlands — as the Member State which is competent under Title II of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004] (1) — a child-raising period taken into account within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) by virtue of the fact that the period of child-raising in the Netherlands, as a pure period of residence, gives rise to a pension entitlement?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative:










2.


Is Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 — following on from the judgments of 23 November 2000 in Case C-135/99 (3) and of 19 July 2012 in Case C-522/10 (4) — to be interpreted broadly as meaning that the competent Member State must also take into account the child-raising period if the person raising the child has completed pension-relevant periods before and after the child-raising due to education or employment only in the scheme of that State, but did not pay contributions into that scheme immediately before or after the child-raising?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

(3)  EU:C:2000:647, Elsen.

(4)  EU:C:2012:475, Reichel-Albert.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 May 2021 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 May 2021 2021/C 164/01
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2021164EN.01000101.xml










4.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/1






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 May 2021
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 May 2021
(2021/C 164/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2044 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86838 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1803 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1016 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0160 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,773 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,94 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5518 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9269 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0087 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5573 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4807 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3554 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6786 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6044 




KRW


South Korean won


1 351,95 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3953 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7967 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5433 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 374,55 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9432 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,081 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,7472 




THB


Thai baht


37,565 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5507 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,4071 




INR


Indian rupee


88,9960 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-238/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, restriction on competition, right of establishment








C_2021242EN.01005402.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/54






Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-238/21)
(2021/C 242/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 17 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57543 — Denmark and SA.58342 — Sweden — COVID-19: Recapitalisation of SAS AB (1); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that SAS AB is eligible for the aid and by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also complains that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, by failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, by failing to properly assess the beneficiary’s significant market power and apply corresponding remedies, by failing to prevent aggressive commercial expansion, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’), and, finally, by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.






(1)  OJ 2021 C 50, p. 3-5.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).