do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/790 of 10 May 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pesca di Delia’ (PGI))
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, stone fruit








L_2021171EN.01000101.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 171/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/790
of 10 May 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pesca di Delia’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Pesca di Delia’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pesca di Delia’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Pesca di Delia’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 18, 18.1.2021, p. 45.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/791 of 10 May 2021 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Aischgründer Karpfen’ (PGI))
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, designation of origin, fresh fish, freshwater fish, labelling, product designation








L_2021171EN.01000301.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 171/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/791
of 10 May 2021
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications
(‘Aischgründer Karpfen’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Germany’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Aischgründer Karpfen’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1096/2012 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Aischgründer Karpfen’ (PGI) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1096/2012 of 14 November 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aischgründer Karpfen (PGI)) (OJ L 326, 24.11.2012, p. 1).

(3)  
            OJ C 27, 25.1.2021, p. 21.
Case T-254/21: Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Armadora Parleros v Commission
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, damage, damages, engine, fishing net, fishing vessel, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2021252EN.01003102.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/31






Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Armadora Parleros v Commission
(Case T-254/21)
(2021/C 252/42)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Armadora Parleros, SL (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the European Commission has infringed Article 118 of Regulation No 1224/2009 regulating the common fisheries policy (CFP), through a failure to act, by not carrying out an adequate control and monitoring as to whether that regulation has been correctly applied by the Kingdom of Spain, which may constitute an act adversely affecting the applicant ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L.;










—


declare that the infringement by the Commission has caused damage to the applicant ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L., consisting in loss of profit from mackerel and hake fishing during the period from 2006 to 2020;










—


order the European Commission to pay the commercial entity ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L. the sum of NINE MILLION, EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-ONE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR EURO AND SIXTY-ONE CENTS (EUR 9 881 434,61) as compensation for damage, together with interest at the statutory rates, and capitalisation of the above interest;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the legal costs incurred.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
The applicant effectively complains of illegal conduct on the part of the European Commission. That relates, in particular, to the Commission’s failure to carry out its duty of monitoring and control regarding the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the effective application of the CFP, and specifically of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1). Particular reference is made in that respect to ‘the failure to verify the engine power of the trawlers which operate in the waters of the Cantabrian and North-western regions’.
As a result of that failure to act, the applicant suffered damage between 2006 and 2020 due to the fact that it was not possible to make use of the vessel ‘Vianto Tercero’ which, due to an incorrect application of the CFP, had to be scrapped and, consequently, became completely unusable. That caused financial loss to the company ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L.
Case C-295/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2021 — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, cessation of trading, corporation tax, parent company, profit, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2021289EN.01002902.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2021 — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances
(Case C-295/21)
(2021/C 289/41)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Allianz Benelux SA

Respondent: État belge, SPF Finances

Question referred

Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, (1) whether or not read in conjunction with the provisions of Directives 78/855/EEC (Third Directive) (2) and 82/891/EEC (Sixth Directive) (3) on company law, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the distributed benefits covered by the Directive are included in the basis of assessment of the company receiving the dividends before 95 % of their total is deducted from that basis and, as the case may be, carried forward to subsequent tax years but which, in the absence of a specific provision stating, in the case of an operation involving the reorganisation of companies, that the deductions thus carried forward in the hand of the transferring company are transferred in full to the receiving company, has the effect that the profits covered are indirectly taxed at the time of that operation on account of the application of a provision which limits the transfer of those deductions in proportion to the share represented by the net tax assets before the operation involving the absorbed parts of the transferring company in the total, once again before the operation, of the net tax assets of the absorbing company and of the net tax value of the absorbed parts?


(1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.

(2)  Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ 1978 L 295, p. 36).

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).
Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-87/21 (OJ C 110, 29.3.2021)
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, air transport, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, single market








C_2021182EN.01006801.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/68






Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-87/21
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 110 of 29 March 2021
)
(2021/C 182/92)
On page 37, Case T-87/21, Condor Flugdienst v Commission should read as follows:



‘Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Condor Flugdienst v Commission
(Case T-87/21)
 
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Kelsterbach, Germany) (represented by: A. Israel, J. Lang and M. Negro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 25 June 2020 on State aid SA.57153 (2020/N) — Germany — COVID-19: Aid to Lufthansa (1), and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





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 that the defendant infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.’









(1)  OJ C 397, 20.11.2020, p. 2.
Case T-250/21: Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Zdút v EUIPO — Nehera and Others (nehera)
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01005201.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/52






Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Zdút v EUIPO — Nehera and Others (nehera)
(Case T-250/21)
(2021/C 278/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ladislav Zdút (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: Y. Echevarría García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isabel Nehera (Sutton, Ontario, Canada), Jean-Henri Nehera (Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada), Natasha Sehnal (Montferrier-sur-Lez, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word figurative nehera mark in black — European Union trade mark No 11 794 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2021 in Case R 1216/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 May 2021 2021/C 178/01
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021178EN.01000101.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 May 2021
(2021/C 178/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2059 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,76 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86810 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1263 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0963 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0125 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,682 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5754 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9265 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0019 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5523 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4689 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3661 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6730 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6061 




KRW


South Korean won


1 350,52 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1863 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7809 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5345 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 208,37 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9587 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,747 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,4671 




THB


Thai baht


37,588 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3801 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2006 




INR


Indian rupee


88,6375 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-297/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2021 — XXX.XX v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, cruel and degrading treatment, foreign national, removal, return migration, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2021278EN.01003601.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2021 — XXX.XX v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino
(Case C-297/21)
(2021/C 278/50)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XXX.XX

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

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) be interpreted, in accordance with Articles 19 and 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] and Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, as meaning that the court of the Member State, hearing an appeal against the decision of the Dublin Unit, may establish the responsibility of the Member State which would have to carry out the transfer under Article 18(1)(d), if it determines the existence, in the Member State responsible, of a risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement by returning the applicant to his country of origin, where the applicant’s life would be in danger and where he would be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment?










2.


In the alternative, must Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted in accordance with Articles 19 and 47 of the [Charter] and Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, as meaning that the court may establish the responsibility of the Member State required to carry out the transfer under Article 18(1)(d) of that regulation, where it is established that:






(a)


there is a risk in the Member State responsible of infringing the principle of non-refoulement by returning the applicant to his country of origin, where his life would be in danger and where he would be at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment?










(b)


it is impossible to carry out the transfer to another Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013?










(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 (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Case C-294/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 May 2021 — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Navitours SARL
Date: 2021-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Luxembourg, VAT, basis of tax assessment, bilateral agreement, carriage of passengers, establishment, frontier, goods and services, provision of services, supply








C_2021297EN.01002301.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 May 2021 — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Navitours SARL
(Case C-294/21)
(2021/C 297/26)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines

Respondent: Navitours SARL

Questions referred

Does (do) Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, (1) which provides that “the following shall be subject to value added tax: 1. the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such
and/or Article 9(2)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, which provides that “the place where transport services are supplied shall be the place where the transport takes place, having regard to the distances covered
apply and entail the levying of VAT in Luxembourg on the passenger transport services carried out by a service provider established in Luxembourg, where those services are performed within a condominium, as that condominium is defined in the Treaty between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany on the demarcation of the common border between those two States and the exchange of letters, signed in Luxembourg on 19 December 1984, as being a joint territory under the joint sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany and in relation to which there is no agreement relating to the collection of VAT on supplies of transport services between those two States, such as provided for in Article 5(1) of the Treaty between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany on the demarcation of the common border between those two States of 19 December 1984, pursuant to which ‘the Contracting States shall settle matters concerning the law applicable in the joint territory under joint sovereignty by means of an additional agreement’?


(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.