do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 September 2021 2021/C 392/01
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021392EN.01000101.xml










28.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 September 2021
(2021/C 392/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1698 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85420 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1738 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0850 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0655 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,443 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5955 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9495 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,3471 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6129 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4812 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1054 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6711 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5840 




KRW


South Korean won


1 382,04 




ZAR


South African rand


17,6179 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5609 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5028 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 673,16 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8991 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,881 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,9955 




THB


Thai baht


39,276 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2187 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5043 




INR


Indian rupee


86,4025 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-648/20: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union (Action for annulment — Civil service — Decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10 — Time limit for lodging a complaint — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, assistant, promotion, seniority, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021490EN.01004401.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/44






Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-648/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10 - Time limit for lodging a complaint - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 490/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: NB (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10; second, and so far as necessary, of the decision to appoint A to that grade; and, third, purely in the alternative, of all the decisions to appoint other officials to that grade.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


NB shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10375 — ArcelorMittal/Condesa Tubos) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 392/03
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel product, merger control, mining industry, tube








C_2021392EN.01000301.xml










28.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10375 — ArcelorMittal/Condesa Tubos)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 392/03)

1.   
On 13 September 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


ArcelorMittal Aceralia Basque Holding, S.L. (‘ArcelorMittal’, Spain), a subsidiary of ArcelorMittal, S.A. (‘ArcelorMittal Group’, Luxembourg)










—


Condesa Tubos, S.L. (‘Condesa Tubos’, Spain).




ArcelorMittal acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Condesa Tubos.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ArcelorMittal and the ArcelorMittal Group: mining, manufacturing and distribution of various steel products to the automotive, construction, energy, packaging, appliances, and mining and by-products industries.










—


for Condesa Tubos: manufacture of different types of small welded carbon steel tubes in three sites in Spain and one site in Germany.






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.10375 — ArcelorMittal/Condesa Tubos
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.10419 – Brookfield/Telia Company/Telia Towers) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 403/02
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2021403EN.01000201.xml










6.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10419 – Brookfield/Telia Company/Telia Towers)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 403/02)
On 28 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 32021M10419. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-601/21: Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, official document, public procurement, services contract








C_2021490EN.01002302.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/23






Action brought on 28 September 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-601/21)
(2021/C 490/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, G. Wils and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by adding exemptions, relating to the production of certain documents, printed matter and stamps and markings, which are not provided for in Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/24/EU, read in conjunction with Article 346(1)(a) TFEU;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In transposing Directive 2014/24, Poland exempted the production of a wide range of documents, printed matter and stamps and markings from the scope of the procedures provided for in that directive. The exemptions introduced by Poland concern public documents (such as, for instance, national ID cards, passport documents and sailors’ service record books); excise stamps, legal markings and vehicle inspection stickers; ballot papers and holographic markings placed on voting rights certificates; microprocessors with software used for the management of public documents; and IT systems and databases essential for the use of public documents. According to the Commission, the introduction of those exemptions amounts to infringement of Directive 2014/24, since the scope of that directive has been limited in a manner that is not justified by the provisions of Directive 2014/24 or Article 346 TFEU. The Commission relies on the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-187/16, Commission v Austria, as an important precedent in that regard.
In the context of the pre-litigation procedure, Poland has argued that there is a need to protect the security of official documents. While agreeing that there is a need to guarantee the security and authenticity of those documents, the Commission considers that Poland has not demonstrated that the required protection, including protection against falsification or protection connected with the provisions on the protection of personal data, cannot be realised in the context of the public procurement procedure provided for in Directive 2014/24.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
Case C-600/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 September 2021 — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, deadline for payment, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2021502EN.01001501.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 September 2021 — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest
(Case C-600/21)
(2021/C 502/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QE

Respondent: Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer contract (1) may not dispense with the requirement for a formal written demand, even if it is expressly and unequivocally provided for in the contract?










2.


Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60,] to be interpreted as meaning that a delay of over 30 days in the payment of a single instalment of principal, interest or incidental amounts may constitute sufficiently serious non-compliance in the light of the term and amount of the loan and the overall balance of the contractual relationship?










3.


Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 to be interpreted as precluding a clause which provides that accelerated repayment of a loan may be triggered in the event of a delay in payment of over 30 days, when national law, which requires a formal written demand to be sent before the accelerated repayment of the loan, permits the parties to dispense with that step, in which case reasonable notice is required?










4.


As to the four criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60], for use by the national court in assessing the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, are those criteria cumulative or alternative?










5.


If the four criteria referred to above are cumulative, can the clause nevertheless be held not to be unfair in the light of the relative importance of a particular criterion?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-611/20: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China — Registration of imports — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, admissibility, aluminium, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), non-flat product, originating product, surveillance concerning imports








C_2021471EN.01005002.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/50






Order of the General Court of 28 September 2021 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission
(Case T-611/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China - Registration of imports - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 471/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey, V. Villante and M. Pirovano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 275, p. 16), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Airoldi Metalli SpA shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Council Decision (EU) 2021/1747 of 28 September 2021 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Banka Slovenije
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Slovenia, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area




L_2021350EN.01000501.xml










4.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 350/5








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/1747
of 28 September 2021
         
amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Banka Slovenije


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,


Having regard to the Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 16 July 2021 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Banka Slovenije (ECB/2021/28) (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.












(2)


The mandate of the current external auditors of Banka Slovenije, Ernst & Young revizija, poslovno svetovanje, d.o.o., ended after the audit for the financial year 2020. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2021 onwards.












(3)


Banka Slovenije has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers, podjetje za revizijo in druge finančno računovodske storitve, d.o.o. as its external auditors for the financial years 2021 to 2023.












(4)


The Governing Council of the ECB has recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers, podjetje za revizijo in druge finančno računovodske storitve, d.o.o. be appointed as the external auditors of Banka Slovenije for the financial years 2021 to 2023.












(5)


Following the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB, Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 1 of Decision 1999/70/EC, paragraph 13 is replaced by the following:


‘13.   PricewaterhouseCoopers, podjetje za revizijo in druge finančno računovodske storitve, d.o.o. are hereby approved as the external auditors of Banka Slovenije for the financial years 2021 to 2023.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.




Done at Brussels, 28 September 2021.


For the Council


The President

S. KUSTEC
            





(1)  
            OJ C 299, 27.7.2021, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision 1999/70/EC of 25 January 1999 concerning the external auditors of the national central banks (OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69).
Case T-625/21: Action brought on 28 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2021471EN.01005801.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/58






Action brought on 28 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
(Case T-625/21)
(2021/C 471/82)
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 16 896 532

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 504/2020-4

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.
Council Decision of 28 September 2021 appointing a chairperson of a Board of Appeal and extending the term of office of a chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office 2021/C 393 I/01
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, administrator, decision-making body (EU)




CI2021393EN.01000101.xml










29.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 393/1








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 28 September 2021
         
appointing a chairperson of a Board of Appeal and extending the term of office of a chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office
(2021/C 393 I/01)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1), and in particular Article 166(1) and (3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 4 June 2021, the Management Board of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) submitted a list of candidates for the post of chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the EUIPO to the Council.












(2)


On 1 June 2021, the Management Board of the EUIPO decided to propose to the Council the extension of the term of office of Mr Sven STÜRMANN as chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the EUIPO for an additional period of five years from 1 August 2022,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

1.   Ms Nina Maria KORJUS, born in Joensuu (Finland) on 30 June 1971, is hereby appointed chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for a term of five years.


2.   The date on which the five-year term referred to in paragraph 1 commences shall be determined by the Management Board of the EUIPO.



Article 2
The term of office of Mr Sven STÜRMANN as chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the EUIPO is hereby extended for a five-year period starting on 1 August 2022 and ending on 31 July 2027.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 28 September 2021.


For the Council


The President

S. KUSTEC
            





(1)  
            OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.
Case C-596/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2021 — A v Finanzamt M
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, purchase, supply chain, tax collection, tax evasion, tax relief








C_2021513EN.01002002.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2021 — A v Finanzamt M
(Case C-596/21)
(2021/C 513/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: Finanzamt M

Questions referred (1)







1.


Can the second purchaser of a good be refused the right of deduction in respect of the purchase because he or she should have known that the original seller had evaded value added tax (VAT) in the first sale, even though the first purchaser had known that the original seller had evaded VAT in the first sale?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the refusal of the right of deduction in the case of the second purchaser limited in terms of amount to the shortfall in tax revenue caused by the evasion?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is the shortfall in tax revenue calculated






a.


by comparing the tax lawfully payable in the supply chain with the tax actually assessed,










b.


by comparing the tax lawfully payable in the supply chain with the tax actually paid, or










c.


in another way, and, if so, what way?










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