do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Croatia, Mediterranean region (EU), Tunisia, Union for the Mediterranean, accession to the European Union, association agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement








L_2021366EN.01000101.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 366/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

The abovementioned Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia signed in Brussels on 27 July 2020, entered into force on 1 August 2021.
Council Decision (EU) 2021/1843 of 15 October 2021 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: commodity agreement, international organisation, multilateral agreement, renewal of an agreement, sugar








L_2021373EN.01009001.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 373/90








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/1843
of 15 October 2021
         
on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The International Sugar Agreement 1992 (1) (the ‘ISA’) was concluded by the Union by Council Decision 92/580/EEC (2) and entered into force on 1 January 1993. The ISA was concluded for a period of three years, until 31 December 1995.












(2)


The International Sugar Council (the ‘ISC’), set up under Article 3 of the ISA, is empowered pursuant to Article 45(2) of the ISA to extend the ISA, by special vote, for successive periods, not exceeding two years on each occasion. Since its conclusion, the ISA has regularly been extended for further periods of two years. The ISA was last extended by decision of the ISC in July 2019 and remains in force until 31 December 2021.












(3)


The ISC, during its 59th session to be held on 26 November 2021, is to adopt a decision on the extension of the ISA for a further period of two years, until 31 December 2023.












(4)


It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the ISC, during its 59th session, as regards the extension of the ISA. A further extension of the ISA is in the interest of the Union,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the International Sugar Council, during its 59th session, shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 for a further period of two years, until 31 December 2023.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 15 October 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. CIGLER KRALJ
            





(1)  International Sugar Agreement 1992 (OJ L 379, 23.12.1992, p. 16).

(2)  Council Decision 92/580/EEC of 13 November 1992 on the signing and conclusion of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 (OJ L 379, 23.12.1992, p. 15).
Case C-634/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2021 — OQ v Land Hesse
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, credit, data protection, financial solvency, natural person, personal data, protection of privacy, termination of a contract








C_2022037EN.01001401.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2021 — OQ v Land Hesse
(Case C-634/21)
(2022/C 37/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OQ

Defendant: Land Hesse

Joined party: SCHUFA Holding AG

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the automated establishment of a probability value concerning the ability of a data subject to service a loan in the future already constitutes a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning the data subject or similarly significantly affects him or her, where that value, determined by means of personal data of the data subject, is transmitted by the controller to a third-party controller and the latter draws strongly on that value for its decision on the establishment, implementation or termination of a contractual relationship with the data subject?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 6(1) and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the use of a probability value — in casu, in relation to a natural person’s ability and willingness to pay, in the case where information about claims against that person is taken into account — regarding specific future behaviour of a natural person for the purpose of deciding on the establishment, implementation or termination of a contractual relationship with that person (scoring) is permissible only if certain further conditions, which are set out in more detail in the grounds of the request for a preliminary ruling, are met?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Cuba pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cuba, GATT, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), revision of an agreement, tariff preference, tariff quota, withdrawal from the EU








L_2021367EN.01000101.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 367/1







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Cuba pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Cuba pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff-rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (1), signed in Brussels on 11 March 2021, entered into force on 7 October 2021.


(1)  
            OJ L 220, 21.6.2021, p. 3.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10460 – DMK/Uelzena/Niesky/Milchtrocknung Südhannover) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 418/13
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control, milk product








C_2021418EN.01003301.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/33






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10460 – DMK/Uelzena/Niesky/Milchtrocknung Südhannover)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 418/13)

1.   
On 29 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:






—


Molkerei Niesky GmbH (‘Niesky’, Germany), belonging to DMK Deutsches Milchkontor Gmbh (‘DMK’, Germany),










—


Uelzena eG (‘Uelzena’, Germany),










—


Milchtrocknung Südhannover eG (‘MTS’, Germany), currently controlled by DMK.




DMK and Uelzena acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of MTS.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for DMK and Niesky: The manufacture and distribution of a diversified range of dairy products, including dairy products, cheese, whey based products, baby food, ice-cream, health products and milk-based ingredients for food production.










—


for Uelzena: The manufacture and distribution of raw dairy materials, whey, butter, concentrated butter, milk powder, cheese, instant drinks, health products, fine foods, sweetened condensed milk and mixed fats.










—


for MTS: The purchase of whey and whey concentrate, and its processing to whey protein concentrate and lactose.






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.10460 — DMK/Uelzena/Niesky/Milchtrocknung Südhannover
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-666/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Società Navigazione Siciliana v Commission
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, branch, control of State aid, purchase, reimbursement of aid, services of general interest, stamp duty, tax exemption








C_2022002EN.01004101.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/41






Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Società Navigazione Siciliana v Commission
(Case T-666/21)
(2022/C 2/57)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA (Trapani, Italy) (represented by: R. Nazzini, F. Ruggeri Laderchi, C. Labruna and L. Calini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in part the decision of 17 June 2021 in so far as it found that Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA was the beneficiary of unlawful aid resulting from the tax exemptions provided for by the 2010 law and ordered the recovery of that aid by the Italian State;










—


order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage as calculated and to be calculated at a later (and possible) stage of the proceedings;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging incorrect identification of the beneficiary of the aid –Infringement of law






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the decision of 17 June 2021 is vitiated by a manifest error of interpretation and application of EU legislation in so far as the Commission found that Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA (not Siremar) was the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with EU legislation relating to the payment of stamp duty for the purchase of the Siremar business branch.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging compatibility of the aid with the derogation provided for by Article 106(2) TFEU — Infringement of law — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the decision of 17 June 2021 is, in any event, vitiated by a manifest error of interpretation and application of EU legislation and by the infringement of the defendant’s obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission — without carrying out any examination in that regard — ruled out the compatibility of the aid in favour of Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA with the derogation provided for by Article 106(2) TFEU for services of general economic interest (SGEIs).
Case C-636/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 October 2021 — NN v Regione Lombardia
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, aid to agriculture, avian influenza, common organisation of markets, damages, economic activity








C_2022002EN.01002401.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 October 2021 — NN v Regione Lombardia
(Case C-636/21)
(2022/C 2/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: NN

Defendant and respondent: Regione Lombardia

Question referred

Does Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 (2) of 2 August 2019 preclude national legislation (such as the Ministerial Decree of 15 January 2020 enacted by the Italian Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies) which is interpreted and applied so as to limit access to compensation for damage caused by avian influenza only to undertakings that have not ceased operating on the date of submission of the application?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1323 of 2 August 2019 on exceptional market support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy (OJ 2019 L 206, p. 12).
NOTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK WITHDRAWING THE NOTICE ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR BREACHES OF THE OBLIGATION TO HOLD MINIMUM RESERVES 2021/C 418/04
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: credit institution, exchange of information, provision, sanction (EU)








C_2021418EN.01000401.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/4






NOTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK WITHDRAWING THE NOTICE ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR BREACHES OF THE OBLIGATION TO HOLD MINIMUM RESERVES
(2021/C 418/04)
Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2531/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the application of minimum reserves by the European Central Bank states that, inter alia, where an institution fails to hold all or part of the minimum reserves imposed in accordance with that Regulation and regulations or decisions of the European Central Bank (ECB) associated therewith, sanctions may be imposed by the ECB. Certain elements of the sanctions policy were published in Notice of the European Central Bank on the imposition of sanctions for breaches of the obligation to hold minimum reserves (1). Those elements have been transferred to Decision (EU) 2021/1815 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2021/45) (2).
Notice (2000/C 39/04) is hereby withdrawn with effect from 3 November 2021.


(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2000, p. 3.

(2)  Decision (EU) 2021/1815 of the European Central Bank of 7 October 2021 on the methodology applied for the calculation of sanctions for non-compliance with the requirement to hold minimum reserves and related minimum reserve requirements (ECB/2021/45) (OJ L 367 of 15.10.2021, p. 4).
Case T-664/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — YF v EFCA
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: principle of proportionality, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_2021502EN.01003702.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/37






Action brought on 15 October 2021 — YF v EFCA
(Case T-664/21)
(2021/C 502/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: YF (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Fisheries Control Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded;




in consequence,






—


annul the contested decision of 18 February 2021 by which the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite period was terminated; and annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection decision of 5 July 2021;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, which is divided into two parts.






1.


First part, alleging a manifest error of assessment.










2.


Second part, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the principle of proportionality.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 October 2021 2021/C 418/05
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021418EN.01000501.xml










15.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 October 2021
(2021/C 418/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1602 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4406 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84618 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0138 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0686 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7928 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,387 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5693 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9500 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,6104 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5644 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4361 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0244 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6506 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5642 




KRW


South Korean won


1 375,51 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1620 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4683 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5127 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 353,05 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8195 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,778 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,1225 




THB


Thai baht


38,524 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3528 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,8458 




INR


Indian rupee


87,3355 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-668/21: Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Siremar v Commission
Date: 2021-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption








C_2022002EN.01004201.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/42






Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Siremar v Commission
(Case T-668/21)
(2022/C 2/58)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sicilia Regionale Marittima SpA — Siremar (Rome, Italy) (represented by: B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi Dal Pozzo and A. Moriconi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 17 June 2021 with respect to Articles 2 and 3;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 5 and 6 of the decision which order the immediate and effective recovery of the alleged State aid;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU and infringement of the 2004 Guidelines for rescuing and restructuring.






—


The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, including with regard to the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it concluded that the rescue aid to Siremar was illegally prolonged for a year and is incompatible with EU State aid rules.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU, with reference to the exemptions from payment of some taxes.






—


The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the contested tax exemption is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of good administration as regards the duration of the proceedings, and that the recovery order is unlawful as a result.






—


The applicant claims in this regard that the investigation procedure that is being criticised here was excessively long, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and of good administration, as well as to the general principles which are corollary of these.