do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10278 — EQT/Cerba) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 244/02
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clinical trial, economic concentration, investment company, medical science, merger control, research body








C_2021244EN.01000201.xml










22.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10278 — EQT/Cerba)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 244/02)
On 14 June 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 32021M10278. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-76/21: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Wacker Chemie AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Umweltbundesamt
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, greenhouse gas, investment, technological change, tradeable emission permit








C_2021357EN.01001701.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/17






Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Wacker Chemie AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Umweltbundesamt
(Case C-76/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/25)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Decision to close the formal investigation procedure after withdrawal by Member State State aid — Poland (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU Withdrawal of notification State aid SA.51502 – (2019/C)/(2018/N) - Poland - Reductions from a capacity mechanism levy for EIUs (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 226/04
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Poland, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy grid








C_2021226EN.01000401.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/4






DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE
State aid — Poland
(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU
Withdrawal of notification
State aid SA.51502 – (2019/C)/(2018/N) - Poland - Reductions from a capacity mechanism levy for EIUs
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 226/04)
The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 15 April 2019 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Poland has withdrawn its notification on 4 February 2021 and will not pursue this aid project further.


(1)  OJ C 200, 14.6.2019, p. 9.
Statement by the European Parliament on the suspension of assistance granted under the external financing instruments 2021/C 226 I/01
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, European neighbourhood policy, cooperation policy, democracy, development policy, financial aid, human rights, rule of law, suspension of aid








CI2021226EN.01000101.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 226/1






Statement by the European Parliament on the suspension of assistance granted under the external financing instruments
(2021/C 226 I/01)
The European Parliament notes that Regulation (EU) 2021/947 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - Global Europe contains a general reference on the possibility of suspending assistance without specifying the concrete basis for such a decision. Such a suspension of assistance should be implemented where a partner country persistently fails to observe the principles of democracy, the rule of law or good governance, or respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms or for internationally recognised nuclear safety standards.
Nevertheless, the European Parliament notes that, unlike in other geographic areas of cooperation, specific provisions for the Neighbourhood area, in particular Article 20(2), provide for increased support to civil society, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, people-to-people contacts, including cooperation between local authorities, support for the improvement of human rights or crisis-related support measures, in the event of serious or persistent degradation of democracy, human rights or the rule of law, or an increased risk of conflict. The European Parliament considers that such increased support to the above-mentioned areas should be provided if such degradation occurs in countries outside the Neighbourhood area as well, and recalls that in particular Article 4(5) foresees that actions implemented through thematic programmes may also be undertaken where the geographic programme has been suspended.
The European Parliament considers that any suspension of assistance under these instruments would modify the overall financial scheme agreed under the ordinary legislative procedure. As a co-legislator and co-branch of the budgetary authority, the European Parliament is therefore entitled to fully exercise its prerogatives in that regard, if such a decision is to be taken.
Case T-333/21: Action brought on 14 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, company in difficulties, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_2021310EN.01003801.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/38






Action brought on 14 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-333/21)
(2021/C 310/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 29 December 2020 on State Aid SA.59188 (2020/NN) — Italy — Alitalia COVID-19 Damage Compensation II (1); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU by prioritizing the review of the aid and freezing its investigation of unlawful rescue aid granted to Alitalia in 2017 and 2019.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violates 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 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).










4.


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










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violates its duty to state reasons.






(1)  OJ 2021 C 134, p. 2.

(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).
Case C-368/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2021 — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, customs debt, import (EU), import levy, third country, vehicle








C_2021382EN.01001302.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2021 — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
(Case C-368/21)
(2021/C 382/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: R.T.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 30 and 60 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the place of importation under VAT legislation of a means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the EU in breach of customs legislation is located in the Member State in which the customs legislation was infringed and the means of transport was first used as such in the EU, or is it located in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and uses the vehicle?










2.


If the place of importation is located in a Member State other than Germany, is Directive 2006/112/EC and, in particular, Articles 30 and 60 thereof, infringed where Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) is declared under a national provision to be applicable mutatis mutandis to import VAT?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 June 2021 2021/C 226/02
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021226EN.01000201.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 June 2021
(2021/C 226/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2125 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,88 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85710 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0643 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0883 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0828 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,335 




HUF


Hungarian forint


346,24 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4695 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9183 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,1969 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5687 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4687 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4089 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6931 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6060 




KRW


South Korean won


1 351,09 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4782 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7519 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4915 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 215,96 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9810 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,876 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,9620 




THB


Thai baht


37,666 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1580 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9003 




INR


Indian rupee


88,6714 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Declaration by the European Commission on a geopolitical dialogue with the European Parliament on the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe 2021/C 226 I/04
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, European neighbourhood policy, cooperation policy, democracy, development policy, financial aid, human rights, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), rule of law








CI2021226EN.01000401.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 226/4






Declaration by the European Commission on a geopolitical dialogue with the European Parliament on the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe
(2021/C 226 I/04)
The European Commission, mindful of the European Parliament’s functions of political control laid down in Article 14 of the Treaty on the European Union, commits to conduct a high-level geopolitical dialogue between the two institutions on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe. This dialogue should allow exchanges with the European Parliament, whose positions on the implementation of the NDICI will be fully taken into consideration.
The geopolitical dialogue will discuss general orientations on the implementation of the NDICI, including on programming before the adoption of programming documents, and concerning specific subjects such as the use of the emerging challenges and priorities cushion or applying leverage leading to possible changes in allocation of funding dedicated to migration or suspension of assistance to a partner country when it persistently fails to observe the principles of democracy, the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The geopolitical dialogue will be structured as follows:






i)


A high-level dialogue between the High Representative/Vice President and the Commissioners in charge of International Partnerships and of Neighbourhood and Enlargement and the European Parliament.










ii)


A permanent dialogue at senior officials’ level with AFET and DEVE working groups to ensure an adequate preparation and follow-up to the high-level dialogue.




The high-level dialogue will take place at least twice a year. One of the meetings may coincide with the presentation by the Commission of the draft annual budget.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10221 — PLD/NBIM/Target Assets) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 236/01
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Berlin, Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, economic concentration, investment company, logistics, merger control, property market, real property








C_2021236EN.01000101.xml










18.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10221 — PLD/NBIM/Target Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 236/01)
On 14 June 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 32021M10221. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-369/21 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2021 by Apologistics GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-282/20, Apologistics GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2021462EN.01002501.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/25






Appeal brought on 14 June 2021 by Apologistics GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-282/20, Apologistics GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-369/21 P)
(2021/C 462/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Apologistics GmbH (represented by: H. Hug, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Markus Kerckhoff
By order of 22 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that the appellant shall bear its own costs.
Case T-564/20: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective cover for computer hardware) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a protective cover for computer hardware — Ground for invalidity — Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State — Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Request that witnesses be heard — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, peripheral








C_2021310EN.01003302.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/33






Order of the General Court of 14 June 2021 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective cover for computer hardware)
(Case T-564/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a protective cover for computer hardware - Ground for invalidity - Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Request that witnesses be heard - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 310/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zagg Inc. (Midvale, Utah, United States) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 (Case R 296/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor and Zagg.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


TrekStor GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.