do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-879/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Determination of the legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13(2)(a) — Article 14(2) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Single employment contract — Employer established in the worker’s Member State of residence — Paid employment activity pursued exclusively in other Member States — Work performed in different Member States during successive periods — Conditions)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, establishment, free movement of workers, frontier worker, residence, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, work contract, workplace








C_2021278EN.01001002.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/10






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie
(Case C-879/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Determination of the legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 13(2)(a) - Article 14(2) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Single employment contract - Employer established in the worker’s Member State of residence - Paid employment activity pursued exclusively in other Member States - Work performed in different Member States during successive periods - Conditions)
(2021/C 278/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Intervener: UA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not applying to a person who, under a single employment contract concluded with a single employer providing for the pursuit of professional activity in several Member States, works, for several successive months, solely in the territory of each of those Member States, where the duration of the uninterrupted periods of work completed by that person in each of those Member States exceeds 12 months, which it is for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10059 — SK hynix/Intel’s NAND and SSD business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 380/01
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, multinational enterprise








C_2021380EN.01000101.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10059 — SK hynix/Intel’s NAND and SSD business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 380/01)
On 20 May 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 32021M10059. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10224 — OTPP/Nikky Investments/Logoplaste) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 205/01
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, packaging product, pension scheme, plastics industry








C_2021205EN.01000101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10224 — OTPP/Nikky Investments/Logoplaste)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 205/01)
On 20 May 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 32021M10224. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-280/21: Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background III)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, furniture industry, leather, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2021278EN.01006101.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/61






Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background III)
(Case T-280/21)
(2021/C 278/83)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background III) — Application for registration No 18 206 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1897/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(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.) 19 May 2021 2021/C 193/03
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021193EN.01000401.xml










20.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 May 2021
(2021/C 193/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2212 




JPY


Japanese yen


133,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86233 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1633 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1008 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1058 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,445 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,85 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5188 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9278 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2910 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5765 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4747 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4819 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6981 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6265 




KRW


South Korean won


1 379,90 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1447 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8594 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5100 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 552,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0533 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,431 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,0135 




THB


Thai baht


38,388 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4520 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2954 




INR


Indian rupee


89,3290 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-4/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ALTI’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 205 — Persons liable for payment of VAT to the public exchequer — Joint and several liability of the recipient of a taxable supply which has exercised its right to deduct VAT knowing that the person liable for payment of that tax would not pay it — Obligation of such a recipient to pay the VAT not paid by the person liable for payment and the default interest due on account of that person’s failure to pay the VAT)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interest, national law, tax law, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2021278EN.01001201.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ALTI’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-4/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 205 - Persons liable for payment of VAT to the public exchequer - Joint and several liability of the recipient of a taxable supply which has exercised its right to deduct VAT knowing that the person liable for payment of that tax would not pay it - Obligation of such a recipient to pay the VAT not paid by the person liable for payment and the default interest due on account of that person’s failure to pay the VAT)
(2021/C 278/16)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘ALTI’ OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the person held jointly and severally liable, for the purpose of that article, must pay, in addition to the value added tax (VAT) not paid by the person liable for payment of that tax, the default interest on that amount, due from the person liable for payment, where it is proved that, in exercising its right of deduction, it knew or should have known that the person liable for payment would not pay that VAT.


(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case T-278/21: Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background II)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, furniture industry, leather, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2021278EN.01006001.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/60






Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background II)
(Case T-278/21)
(2021/C 278/81)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background II) — Application for registration No 18 206 086

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1896/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-277/21: Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background I)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, furniture industry, leather, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2021278EN.01005901.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/59






Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background I)
(Case T-277/21)
(2021/C 278/80)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background I) — Application for registration No 18 206 090

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1895/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10204 — Total Produce/Dole Food Company) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 193/05
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural trade, distributive trades, economic concentration, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, fruit-growing, import, market gardening, merger control, tropical fruit








C_2021193EN.01000601.xml










20.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10204 — Total Produce/Dole Food Company)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 193/05)

1.   
On 10 May 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:






—


Total Produce plc (‘Total Produce’, Republic of Ireland)










—


DFC Holdings LLC (‘DFC Holdings’, United States of America)




Total Produce enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with DFC Holdings and its wholly owned subsidiary, Dole Food Company Inc (‘Dole Food Company’). DFC Holdings and Dole Food Company are together referred to as ‘Dole’).


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Total Produce: import and distribution of a wide range of fresh fruit and vegetables, including bananas and pineapples. Total Produce also operates banana ripening centres and is active worldwide, with a focus on Europe.










—


for Dole: production, sales and distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables, including bananas and pineapples, in North America, Europe, Latin America, South Africa and Dubai, with a main focus on North America.






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.10204 —Total Produce/Dole Food Company
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.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 17 May 2019)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, consumer information, designation of origin, ethanol, foodstuff, labelling, marketing standard, product designation




L_2021178EN.01000401.xml










20.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 178/4







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 17 May 2019
)








1.


On page 29, Article 50(1):




for:


‘1.   Spirit drinks which do not meet the requirements of this Regulation but which meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and were produced before 25 May 2021 may continue to be placed on the market until stocks are exhausted.’,


read:


‘1.   Products referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation which do not meet the requirements of this Regulation but which meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and were produced before 25 May 2021 may continue to be placed on the market until stocks are exhausted.’.








2.


On page 45, Annex I, category 34, point (d):




for:






‘(d)


The raw materials used shall exclude milk products.’,




read:






‘(d)


The raw materials used shall exclude milk and milk products.’.










3.


On page 46, Annex I, category 39, point (d):




for:






‘(d)


Milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.’,




read:






‘(d)


Milk and milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.’.










4.


On page 46, Annex I, category 40, point (d):




for:






‘(d)


Milk products may be used in the production of liqueur with egg.’,




read:






‘(d)


Milk and milk products may be used in the production of liqueur with egg.’.
Case C-88/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux — France) — Criminal proceedings against ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL, EP, FQ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Fundamental rights — Ne bis in idem principle — Joint imposition of administrative and criminal penalties for identical facts — Cold calling — Misleading commercial practice — Insufficient justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, distance selling, penalty, restriction on competition, right to justice








C_2021320EN.01001001.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/10






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux — France) — Criminal proceedings against ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL, EP, FQ
(Case C-88/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Fundamental rights - Ne bis in idem principle - Joint imposition of administrative and criminal penalties for identical facts - Cold calling - Misleading commercial practice - Insufficient justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 320/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux

Criminal proceedings against

ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL, EP, FQ

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux (Criminal Court, Bordeaux, France), by decision of 12 December 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Corrigendum to Regulation No 107 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of category M2 or M3 vehicles with regard to their general construction (Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 23 February 2018)
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Subjects: approval, motor vehicle, technical specification, technical standard








L_2021178EN.01000601.xml










20.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 178/6







Corrigendum to Regulation No 107 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of category M2 or M3 vehicles with regard to their general construction

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 23 February 2018
)


On page 74, in the table:
for:









‘Classes


I and A


II, III and B




First step from
Ground ‘D’


Max. height (mm)


340 (*)


380 (*)(1)(2)




Min. depth (mm)


300 (3)




Other steps ‘E’


Max. height (mm)


250 (4)


350 (5)




Min. height (mm)


120




Min. depth (mm)


200’





read:









‘Classes


I and A


II, III and B




First step from
Ground ‘D’


Max. height (mm)


340 (1)


380 (1)(2)(3)




Min. depth (mm)


300 (*)




Other steps ‘E’


Max. height (mm)


250 (4)


350 (5)




Min. height (mm)


120




Min. depth (mm)


200’