do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: GATT, Norway, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), revision of an agreement, tariff preference, tariff quota, withdrawal from the EU








L_2021191EN.01000101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 191/1







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (1), signed in Brussels on 17 December 2020, entered into force on 10 May 2021.


(1)  
            OJ L 181, 21.5.2021, p. 3.
Case C-338/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: S.S., N.Z., S.S.
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, asylum seeker, removal, residence permit, right of asylum, trafficking in human beings








C_2021431EN.01000701.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: S.S., N.Z., S.S.
(Case C-338/21)
(2021/C 431/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: S.S., N.Z., S.S.

Question referred

Must Articles 27(3) and 29 of 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 (1) be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue here, in which a Member State has opted to implement Article 27(3)(c), but has also granted the suspensive effect that can be applied to the implementation of a transfer decision, to a review or appeal against a decision in proceedings concerning an application for a residence permit on the grounds of trafficking in human beings, which, while not being a transfer decision, does nevertheless temporarily prevent the actual transfer?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10294 – MUFG/SMFG/MHFG/Resona HD/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 205/08
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Japan, banking, economic concentration, electronic money, merger control








C_2021205EN.01001101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/11






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10294 – MUFG/SMFG/MHFG/Resona HD/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 205/08)

1.   
On 20 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:






—


Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (‘MUFG’, Japan);










—


Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. (‘SMFG’, Japan);










—


Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. (‘MHFG’, Japan); and










—


Resona Holdings, Inc. (‘Resona HD’, Japan).




MUFG, SMFG, MHFG and Resona HD acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Cotra Co., Ltd. (Japan), a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


MUFG, SMFG, MHFG and Resona HD are banking groups based in Japan;










—


the JV will develop and set up a new alternative electronic payments infrastructure exclusively in Japan, aimed mainly at small money transactions among and between individuals.






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.10294 – MUFG/SMFG/MHFG/Resona HD/JV
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10246 — Hellman & Friedman/Cordis) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 251/02
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, medical device, merger control








C_2021251EN.01000201.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10246 — Hellman & Friedman/Cordis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 251/02)
On 31 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 32021M10246. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-618/20: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — ZU, TV v Ryanair Ltd
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, group of companies, indemnification, international convention, transport licence, traveller








C_2021357EN.01001603.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/16






Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — ZU, TV v Ryanair Ltd
(Case C-618/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/23)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.
Case T-332/20: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2021 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Royal Bavarian Beer — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Unitary character of the EU trade mark — Article 1(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021289EN.01003701.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/37






Order of the General Court of 31 May 2021 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)
(Case T-332/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Royal Bavarian Beer - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Unitary character of the EU trade mark - Article 1(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 289/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (Geltendorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 (Case R 1714/2019-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Royal Bavarian Beer.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case C-337/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2021 — FH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, civil aviation, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2021391EN.01000402.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2021 — FH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.
(Case C-337/21)
(2021/C 391/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: FH

Defendant and respondent: SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.

Question referred

Is Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where flights with different air carriers are the subject of a single reservation made via an online agency, a right to compensation exists against the operating air carrier of the first leg of the journey where, although the delay in arrival of the flight of the first leg was less than 3 hours, this led to the connecting flight being missed and, as a result, the delay in arrival of the passenger at the final destination was in excess of 3 hours, and where the operating air carrier of the first leg was neither a party to the contract of carriage for the second leg nor aware that a connecting flight had been booked at the same time with a different air carrier?
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 28 June 2021, the case was removed from the register of the Court.


(1)  Regulation 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).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 May 2021 2021/C 205/03
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021205EN.01000301.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 May 2021
(2021/C 205/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2142 




JPY


Japanese yen


133,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4366 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85765 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1250 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0960 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1790 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,451 




HUF


Hungarian forint


347,85 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4865 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9196 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,4398 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5796 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4711 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4246 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6811 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6102 




KRW


South Korean won


1 355,86 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7945 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7422 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5180 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 404,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0189 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,075 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,4203 




THB


Thai baht


38,004 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3844 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,3191 




INR


Indian rupee


88,0860 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 26 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks (Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 28 May 2021)
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Public Prosecutor's Office, criminal procedure, operation of the Institutions, public prosecution








L_2021190EN.01010101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/101







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 25 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 28 May 2021
)


On the cover page and on page 100, the title of the Decision:
for:


                  ‘Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 25 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks’,

read:


                  ‘Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 26 May 2021 determining the date on which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes its investigative and prosecutorial tasks’.

On page 102, the introductory sentence to the signature:
for:


                  ‘Done at Brussels, 25 May 2021.’,

read:


                  ‘Done at Brussels, 26 May 2021.’.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2021/C 205/04
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), man-made fibre, originating product








C_2021205EN.01000401.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/4






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2021/C 205/04)

1.   

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.


2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





High tenacity yarn of polyesters


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/325 of 24 February 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity yarns of polyesters originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(OJ L 49, 25. 2.2017, p. 6)


26. 2.2022







(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-172/21: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, customers, reduced price, ticket, travel








C_2021357EN.01001702.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/17






Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-172/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/26)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case T-303/21: Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, fundamental rights, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2021289EN.01004601.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/46






Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO
(Case T-303/21)
(2021/C 289/62)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested measure rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 March 2021 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; and










—


order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:
The contested measure is vitiated by a breach of the principle of procedural economy and by an infringement of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, on the following grounds:






1.


infringement of the applicant’s right of defence, since the defendant continues not to connect the disciplinary proceedings with errors and infringements of fundamental rights committed by the defendant at the earlier stage — that is to say, at the pre-disciplinary stage — which also produce effects at the subsequent stage of the disciplinary proceedings; and










2.


infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.
Case T-306/21: Action brought on 31 May 2021 — Falke v Commission
Date: 2021-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, economic activity, epidemic, equal treatment, restriction on competition, turnover








C_2021278EN.01007001.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/70






Action brought on 31 May 2021 — Falke v Commission
(Case T-306/21)
(2021/C 278/94)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Falke KGaA (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Vetter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the defendant of 20 November 2020 (State aid No SA.59289), as amended by the decision of the defendant of 12 February 2021 (State aid No SA.61744);










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The German aid scheme ‘Bundesregelung Fixkostenhilfe 2020’ approved by the defendant is incompatible with the internal market, as it distorts competition without that being exceptionally justified in the present case. The defendant made a manifest error of assessment by deciding that an aid scheme requiring a company-wide decrease in turnover of at least 30 % was compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The application of the aid scheme at the level of the company would make companies, such as the applicant, which have several business areas that have been affected to varying degrees by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the store-based business having sustained a loss in turnover significantly exceeding 30 % due to closure, ineligible to apply solely because another business area does not sustain any losses in turnover and the calculation of an arithmetic mean of the turnover of different business areas leads to the 30 % threshold not being reached. Consequently, those companies, unlike companies with only one business area, might receive aid only for a fraction of the eligible period or none at all and would have to cross-finance the uncovered fixed costs of their closed business area from their other business areas. That leads to a distortion in competition both in relation to competitors in the business area affected by the pandemic and in relation to competitors in the business area unaffected by the pandemic.










2.


The defendant infringed the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU by not giving the applicant the opportunity to raise its doubts as to the compatibility of the aid scheme with the internal market in the preliminary review procedure.