do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 5 August 2021 2021/C 314/06
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021314EN.01000801.xml










6.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 August 2021
(2021/C 314/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1850 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4366 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85060 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1983 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0733 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4410 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,415 




HUF


Hungarian forint


353,95 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5480 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9159 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,1155 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5990 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4817 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2160 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6759 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5996 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,34 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0232 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6555 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5008 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 993,36 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9977 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,660 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,5784 




THB


Thai baht


39,389 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1064 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6112 




INR


Indian rupee


87,8256 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10307 — Oxford Properties/M7 Real Estate) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 314/08
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: business lease, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2021314EN.01001001.xml










6.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10307 — Oxford Properties/M7 Real Estate)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 314/08)

1.   
On 29 July 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:






—


Oxford Properties Management (UK) Limited (‘Oxord Properties’, United Kingdom) controlled by Oxford Properties Group (Canada) and belonging to the OMERS Group (Canada);










—


M7 Real Estate Ltd (‘M7 Real Estate’, United Kingdom).




Oxord Properties acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of M7 Real Estate.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Oxord Properties: ownership, development and managment of real estate assets in Europe.










—


for M7 Real Estate: investment asset manager focussing on the real estate sector and, in particular, on pan-European, regional, multi-tenanted commercial real estate.






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.10307 — Oxford Properties/M7 Real Estate
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.
Case T-494/21: Action brought on 6 August 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, aid to undertakings, airline, capital increase, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_2021391EN.01002502.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/25






Action brought on 6 August 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission
(Case T-494/21)
(2021/C 391/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Malta Air ltd. (Pietà, Malta) (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 applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 5 April 2021 on State aid SA.59913 (2021/N) — France — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation of Air France and the Air France — KLM Holding; (1) and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM form the scope of the contested decision.










2.


Second 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.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFUE.










4.


Forth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., nondiscrimination, free provision of services (2) and free establishment).










5.


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










6.


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










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to meet the requirements of Article 342 TFUE and of the Regulation 1/58 pertaining to the language of official acts of EU institutions. (3)







(1)  OJ 2021 C 240, p. 13.

(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).

(3)  EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385-386).
Case C-484/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.° 20 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 August 2021 — F C and M A B v Caixabank S.A., formerly Bankia, S.A.
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, limitation of legal proceedings, mortgage, unfair terms of contract








C_2022213EN.01001701.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 20 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 August 2021 — F C and M A B v Caixabank S.A., formerly Bankia, S.A.
(Case C-484/21)
(2022/C 213/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 20 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: F C C and M A B

Defendant: Caixabank S.A., formerly Bankia, S. A.

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 (1) for the limitation period of an action for damages arising from an unfair term, such as a costs clause, to begin to run before the point when the term in question has been declared void for unfairness?










2.


Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 to fix the commencement of the limitation period for an unfair term as the date on which a court with authority to create case-law, such as the Supreme Court, states that a particular term is unfair, irrespective of whether or not the consumer in question is aware of the content of the judgment?










3.


Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 to establish that, in a long-term contract, the limitation period for claiming any mortgage creation costs paid begins to run at the point when payment is made, given that the unfair term has exhausted its effects at that point and there is no risk that it will be reapplied?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-476/21: Action brought on 6 August 2021 — TransnetBW v ACER
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electrical energy, energy distribution, energy grid, energy law, equal treatment, polluter pays principle, principle of proportionality, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2021391EN.01002201.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/22






Action brought on 6 August 2021 — TransnetBW v ACER
(Case T-476/21)
(2021/C 391/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TransnetBW GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: T. Burmeister, and P. Kistner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the ACER Board of Appeal of 28 May 2021, Case number A-001-2021 (cons.), concerning the appeal against the ACER Decision No. 30/2020 on the Redispatch and Countertrading Cost Sharing Methodology for the Capacity Calculation Region Core (the Contested Decision);










—


order ACER to pay TransnetBW GmbH’s 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 scope of the RDCT Cost Sharing Methodology as confirmed by the Contested Decision is unlawful. The RDCT Cost Sharing Methodology as confirmed by the Contested Decision unlawfully extends the application of the polluter pays principle to the sharing of costs for remedial actions exercised on basically all transmission network elements in the Capacity Calculation Region Core, albeit this is by law designed to be an exemption from the general obligation of network owners to maintain and expand their networks according to the market need (owner pays principle).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of a common loop flow threshold of 10 % in the RDCT Cost Sharing Methodology as confirmed by the Contested Decision is unlawful. ACER had no competence to determine a common loop flow threshold and respectively the ACER Board of Appeal had no competence to confirm the common loop flow threshold. The common loop flow threshold was set at a too low level of 10 % and was based on insufficient and contested data.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the penalisation of loop flows above threshold is unlawful. The penalization of loop flows above threshold in comparison to internal flows has no legal basis, violates the polluter pays principle, the principle of non-discrimination as well as the principle of proportionality and sets wrong incentives.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ACER Board of Appeal unlawfully did carry out only a limited review of the complex technical and economic assessments, which were to be made by ACER in the course of the approval procedure of the RDCT Cost Sharing Methodology, which violates the mandatory intensity of review by the ACER Board of Appeal as defined by the Court in its ruling in the Aquind Case (General Court, Decision of 18 November 2020, Case No. T-735/18).
Case T-475/21: Action brought on 6 August 2021 — France v Commission
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, fodder-growing, leguminous vegetable, reimbursement of aid








C_2021391EN.01002101.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/21






Action brought on 6 August 2021 — France v Commission
(Case T-475/21)
(2021/C 391/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, T. Stéhelin, A-L. Desjonquères and G. Bain, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a correction amounting to EUR 45 869 990,19 in respect of the ‘Voluntary Coupled Support’ for the reasons ‘Mesure 24 — année de demande 2017 (année financière 2018)’ and ‘Mesure 24 — année de demande 2017 (année financière 2019)’ for the financial years 2018 and 2019;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law against the contested decision.
According to the applicant, the Commission erred in law by misinterpreting Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (1) stating that legumes grown as part of a mixture including grasses could not be eligible for a voluntary coupled support scheme.
In the first place, Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013 permits Member States to set up coupled support schemes for all common and established practices in a Member State in the protein crops sector, which includes legumes grown for their high protein content.
In the second place, Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the protein crops sector includes the practice, common in particular in France, of growing mixtures of fodder legumes and grasses in which the former are predominant.
Accordingly, the Commission erred in law in stating, when adopting the contested decision, that the growing of mixtures of fodder legumes and grasses in which the former are predominant cannot be eligible for the voluntary coupled support provided for by Article 52 of Regulation No 1307/2013.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1305, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1302 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea 2021/C 314/02
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Guinea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2021314EN.01000201.xml










6.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/2






Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1305, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1302 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea
(2021/C 314/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1305 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1302 (4).
The Council of the European Union has amended the identifying information of the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 280 26.10.2010, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 283, 6.8.2021, p. 18.

(3)  OJ L 346, 23.12.2009, p.26


(4)  OJ L 283, 6.8.2021, p. 9.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2021/C 314/07
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, paper








C_2021314EN.01000901.xml










6.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/9






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2021/C 314/07)
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)





Certain lightweight thermal paper


The Republic of Korea


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea
(OJ L 114, 3.5.2017, p. 3)


4.5.2022






(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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10326 – ALLIANZ HOLDING/SANTANDER/AVIVA COMPANIES/SANTANDER AVIVA COMPANIES) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 413/04
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, holding company, indemnity insurance, life assurance, merger control, pension scheme








C_2021413EN.01000401.xml










12.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10326 – ALLIANZ HOLDING/SANTANDER/AVIVA COMPANIES/SANTANDER AVIVA COMPANIES)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 413/04)
On 6 August 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 32021M10326. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.