do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 17 August 2021 2021/C 332/04
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021332EN.01000401.xml










18.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

17 August 2021
(2021/C 332/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1767 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85323 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1948 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0713 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3983 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,441 




HUF


Hungarian forint


351,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5605 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9256 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9113 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6138 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4838 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1704 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6983 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5993 




KRW


South Korean won


1 381,91 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4416 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6244 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4910 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 932,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9869 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,346 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,3767 




THB


Thai baht


39,208 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2065 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4266 




INR


Indian rupee


87,4390 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-506/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2021 — UM v Daimler AG
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approval, civil liability proceedings, damages, market approval, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control, purchase, technical standard, vehicle parts








C_2021431EN.01001001.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2021 — UM v Daimler AG
(Case C-506/21)
(2021/C 431/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UM

Defendant: Daimler AG

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles and their assets? Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?










2.


Does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness EU fundamental rights and principles, and the inherent rights of nature, require that the purchaser of a vehicle have a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer in the event of any culpable — negligent or intentional — act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?










3.


Does EU law, in particular Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, preclude provisions of German law such as Paragraph 348(3) of the German Code of Civil Procedure and the related case-law, in so far as they impede, delay or frustrate a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union? Does this also apply to the provisions of German law on bias, such as Paragraph 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure?






(1)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).
Case T-509/21: Action brought on 18 August 2021 — IMG v Commission
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, development aid, distribution of EU funding, indemnification, international organisation, principle of legal certainty








C_2021431EN.01004301.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/43






Action brought on 18 August 2021 — IMG v Commission
(Case T-509/21)
(2021/C 431/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;
and, consequently,










—


annul the Commission decision of 8 June 2021 implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2019 (Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P), according to which the applicant is not eligible to implement Union funds under indirect management as an international organisation pursuant to the applicable financial rules;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of material and non-material damage;










—


order the defendant to pay all of 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 infringement of Article 266 TFEU. In that regard, the applicant relies on an infringement of the force of res judicata of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2019.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of diligence on the grounds of infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.










4.


Fourth plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the decision is vitiated by errors in law and manifest errors of assessment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to have its affairs handled within a reasonable time.
Case C-505/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 August 2021 — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, judicial review, removal, return migration, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2021412EN.01000801.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 August 2021 — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)
(Case C-505/21)
(2021/C 412/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FU

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No 604/2013), (1) where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for ordinary suspension, made together with an application for the annulment of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State declared responsible for examining his or her application for international protection, does not suspend the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on that application for suspension?










2.


Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for suspension of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection suspends the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on the application for suspension only if that application has been made on grounds of extreme urgency, where the applicant is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular where he or she is held in detention or is placed at the disposal of the government, and where he or she has not yet applied for the ordinary suspension of the decision at the same time as applying for its annulment?






(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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10383 — Blackstone/Vista/Ellucian) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 342/02
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, information technology applications, investment company, merger control, software








C_2021342EN.01000201.xml










25.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10383 — Blackstone/Vista/Ellucian)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 342/02)
On 18 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 32021M10383. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 332/06
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, consumer goods, economic concentration, industrial product, investment company, merger control, provision of services, retail trade








C_2021332EN.01000701.xml










18.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 332/06)

1.   
On 6 August 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:






—


AEA Investors LP (‘AEA’, USA),










—


Polygon Holding AB (‘Polygon’, Sweden).




AEA acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Polygon.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for AEA: private equity firm with investments in a variety of sectors, in particular value-added industrial products, specialty chemicals, consumer/retail and services.










—


for Polygon: provider of property damage restoration services and temporary climate solutions.






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.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding
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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10394 – Platinum Equity Group/Solenis) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 332/07
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, water treatment








C_2021332EN.01000801.xml










18.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10394 – Platinum Equity Group/Solenis)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 332/07)

1.   
On 11 August 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:






—


Platinum Equity Group (USA);










—


Solenis UK International Limited (‘Solenis’, UK), jointly controlled by Clayton Dubilier & Rice (United States) and BASF SE (Germany).




Platinum Equity Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Solenis.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Platinum Equity Group is a private equity investment firm specialised in the merger, acquisition and operation of companies in a broad range of businesses. One of its portfolio companies is Sigura Water, active in water care solutions and services for residential and commercial pool and spa applications as well as industrial markets.










—


Solenis is a specialty chemical company and provider of process and water solutions. The company’s product portfolio includes process aids, water treatment chemistries, functional additives, and monitoring and control systems.






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.10394 – Platinum Equity Group/Solenis
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-511/21: Action brought on 18 August 2021 — TB v ENISA
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, reassignment, transparency in decision-making, work contract








C_2021481EN.01002902.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/29






Action brought on 18 August 2021 — TB v ENISA
(Case T-511/21)
(2021/C 481/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TB (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision taken by ENISA to renew the applicant’s employment contract, in so far as it reassigns the applicant to a post with non-managerial functions, this decision being formalised by the signed version of the document sent by ENISA on 13 October 2020 and presented as an amendment of her contract and by the signature of such document by both the applicant and ENISA on 26 October 2020;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2021, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the renewal decision;










—


order the compensation of the material prejudice and the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the renewal decision is illegal, in so far as it results from the reorganisation process launched by ENISA, which, it is alleged, has not been carried out in the interests of the service — Breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, and breach of Articles 18(1) and 20(2)(a) of Management Board decision MB/2018/14.






—


The reorganisation process is vitiated by a lack of clarity and transparency, by a breach of the principle of legal certainty, by a manifest error of assessment and by a violation of principle 6 of Decision MB/2020/5.










—


The reorganisation process is vitiated by a lack of motivation.










—


The reorganisation process has been carried out in violation of Annex 1 of the Administrative Notice.










—


The reorganisation process has been carried out in violation of principles 7 and 8 of Decision MB/2020/5, of the principle of good administration, of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in violation of the duty of care.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the renewal decision is illegal in so far as the applicant’s contract was not renewed through a transparent and fair process — Breach of Article 1 of ED Decision 38/2017, and of point 5.1 of the Standard Operating Procedure, and breach of the duty of good administration.
Case C-298/21: Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov — Romania) — S.C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS v U.A.T. Comuna Dalnic
Date: 2021-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, public contract, public procurement, subcontracting








C_2021471EN.01003301.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/33






Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov — Romania) — S.C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS v U.A.T. Comuna Dalnic
(Case C-298/21) (1)

(2021/C 471/45)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.