do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures 2021/C 390/06
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: India, bar, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2021390EN.01000901.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/9






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
(2021/C 390/06)

1.   

As provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised 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 countervailing 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 subsidisation 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 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain stainless steel bars and rods


India


Anti-subsidy duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1141 of 27 June 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India following an expiry review under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council
(OJ L 165, 28.6.2017, p. 2)


29.6.2022










(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

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

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-391/20: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, dominant position, project of common interest, rail transport, road network, transport network, tunnel








C_2021490EN.01005201.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/52






Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission
(Case T-391/20) (1)

(2021/C 490/63)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10392 — H.I.G. Capital/Cesar/SDA/VDM) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 402/01
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, cosmetic product, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, retail selling








C_2021402EN.01000101.xml










5.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10392 — H.I.G. Capital/Cesar/SDA/VDM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 402/01)
On 27 September 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 32021M10392. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-594/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — VB v Sixt Leasing SE
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, distance selling, financial services, hire purchase, provision of services, termination of a contract, vehicle rental








C_2021490EN.01002301.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — VB v Sixt Leasing SE
(Case C-594/21)
(2021/C 490/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VB

Defendant: Sixt Leasing SE

Questions referred







1.


Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements with a term of 48 months that are concluded with a consumer constitute ‘car rental services’, and are they therefore covered by the exception from a right of withdrawal under the law on distance selling set out in Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:










2.


Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, (2) now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU?






(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10397 – Tecpetrol/Oaktree/Litoral Gas/ECS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 402/02
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, extraction of oil, gas supply, hydrocarbon, investment company, merger control, petroleum exploration








C_2021402EN.01000201.xml










5.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10397 – Tecpetrol/Oaktree/Litoral Gas/ECS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 402/02)
On 27 September 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 32021M10397. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-633/20: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Public health — Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 — Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs — Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) — Concept of legislative act — Concept of regulatory act — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: coronavirus disease, drug surveillance, environmental protection, epidemic, genetically modified organism, medicinal product, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality, public consultation, right to health








C_2021490EN.01004301.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/43






Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-633/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 - Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs - Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) - Concept of legislative act - Concept of regulatory act - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 490/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE) (Paris, France) and the five other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: G. Tumerelle, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: J. Etienne and W. Kuzmienko, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with and supply of medicinal products for human use containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (OJ 2020 L 231, p. 12).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’.










3.


The Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










4.


The Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’ shall bear the costs relating to their respective applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Case T-608/21: Action brought on 27 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2021471EN.01005302.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/53






Action brought on 27 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
(Case T-608/21)
(2021/C 471/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Automobiles Citroën (Poissy, France) (represented by: C. Weyl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polestar Holding AB (Götenborg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Device of two inverted chevrons) — European Union trade mark No 16 898 173

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 502/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-595/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, product designation








C_2021502EN.01001401.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2021 — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-595/21)
(2021/C 502/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LSI — Germany GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: Bayerische Kontrollbehörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit und Veterinärwesen)

Questions referred







1.


Is the term ‘name of the product’ in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (1) to be interpreted as being synonymous with the ‘name of the food’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) to (3) of that regulation?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Is the ‘name of the product’ the name under which the food is offered in trade and in advertising and is generally known to consumers, even if it is not the name of the food but the protected name, brand name or fancy name within the meaning of Article 17(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Can the ‘name of the product’ also consist of two components, one of which is a generic name or term protected under trade mark law which is not related to the individual food and is supplemented, for each of the individual products, by an additional element (as the second part of the name of the product) which specifies the food in question?










4.


If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
Which of the two components of the name of the product is to be taken as the basis for the purposes of the additional indication pursuant to point 4(b) of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 where the two components of the name of the product are printed on the packaging in different sizes?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10452 – CPP Investments/FountainVest/Langdi Pharmaceutical) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 398/03
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2021398EN.01000401.xml










1.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10452 – CPP Investments/FountainVest/Langdi Pharmaceutical)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 398/03)
On 27 September 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 32021M10452. 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.10360 — Assicurazioni Generali/Società Cattolica Di Assicurazione) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 390/07
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control, provision of services, real property








C_2021390EN.01001001.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10360 — Assicurazioni Generali/Società Cattolica Di Assicurazione)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 390/07)

1.   
On 17 September 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:






—


Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. (‘Generali’, Italy),










—


Società Cattolica di Assicurazione S.p.A. (‘Cattolica’, Italy).




Generali acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Cattolica.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced by Generali on 31 May 2021.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Generali: the provision and distribution of life and non-life insurance products, reinsurance products, assistance services, and real estate and asset management services;










—


for Cattolica: the provision and distribution of life and non-life insurance products, reinsurance products, as well as ancillary and support activities.






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.



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.10360 — Assicurazioni Generali/Società Cattolica Di Assicurazione
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’).
Special report No 23/2021 Reducing grand corruption in Ukraine: several EU initiatives, but still insufficient results 2021/C 390/04
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, European External Action Service, European cooperation, Ukraine, control of restrictive practices, corruption, judicial reform, oligarchy, restriction on competition, rule of law








C_2021390EN.01000401.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/4






Special report No 23/2021
Reducing grand corruption in Ukraine: several EU initiatives, but still insufficient results
(2021/C 390/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 23/2021 ‘Reducing grand corruption in Ukraine: several EU initiatives, but still insufficient results’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Notice concerning the application by Zimbabwe of Article 18(3) of Protocol 1 on rules of origin to the EU-ESA interim Economic Partnership Agreement, use of self-certification for imports into the EU of products originating in Zimbabwe under the EU-ESA interim Economic Partnership Agreement 2021/C 390/03
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Zimbabwe, cooperation agreement (EU), customs cooperation, economic cooperation, import (EU), interim agreement (EU), originating product, tariff preference, trade cooperation








C_2021390EN.01000301.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/3






Notice concerning the application by Zimbabwe of Article 18(3) of Protocol 1 on rules of origin to the EU-ESA interim Economic Partnership Agreement, use of self-certification for imports into the EU of products originating in Zimbabwe under the EU-ESA interim Economic Partnership Agreement
(2021/C 390/03)
This notice is issued for the information of customs authorities, importers and economic operators, which are involved in imports into the EU of products originating in Zimbabwe under the EU-ESA interim Economic Partnership Agreement (the ‘iEPA’).
Following a notification made by Zimbabwe to the Customs Cooperation Committee of the EU-ESA iEPA activating Article 18(3) of Protocol 1 to the EU-ESA iEPA (1), from 1 July 2021 products originating in Zimbabwe shall, on importation into the EU, benefit from the preferential tariff treatment of the iEPA upon submission of an invoice declaration made out, as provided for in Article 23 of Protocol1, by:






(i)


a Zimbabwean exporter registered in the EU’s Registered Exporter system (the REX system), or










(ii)


any Zimbabwean exporter where the total value of the originating products consigned does not exceed EUR 6 000.




From that date, paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of Article 18 ceased to apply for imports into the EU from Zimbabwe. Therefore, from 1 July 2021, movement certificates EUR.1 and invoice declarations made out by approved exporters are no longer valid to claim preferential tariff treatment under the EU-ESA iEPA.


(1)  As amended by Decision 1/2020 of 14 January 2020 of the EU-ESA EPA Committee.