do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-5/21: Order of the General Court of 4 November 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality — Refusal of the EEA to refer a question to the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air quality, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, pollution control








C_2022024EN.01003801.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/38






Order of the General Court of 4 November 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA
(Case T-5/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Refusal of the EEA to refer a question to the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 24/50)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gebruers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision that was allegedly adopted by the EEA in an email of 9 November 2020 and by which it refused to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of a provision of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Environment Agency (EEA).






(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: South Korea, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2021389EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 389/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on certain aspects of air services, signed in Brussels on 25 June 2020, entered into force on 1 November 2021, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 5 October 2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10460 – DMK / NIESKY / UELZENA / MILCHTROCKNUNG SÜDHANNOVER) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 464/03
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control, milk product








C_2021464EN.01001501.xml










17.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 464/15






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10460 – DMK / NIESKY / UELZENA / MILCHTROCKNUNG SÜDHANNOVER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 464/03)
On 4 November 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 German language 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 policy’ 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 32021M10460. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10479 – TELENET / WILLEMEN GROEP / LIVIT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 463/05
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual industry, building industry, economic concentration, merger control, mobile communication, property leasing, provision of services, real estate business, retail trade








C_2021463EN.01000501.xml










16.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10479 – TELENET / WILLEMEN GROEP / LIVIT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 463/05)
On 4 November 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 policy’ 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 32021M10479. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-556/21: Action brought on 4 November 2021 — Lyubetskaya v Council
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Member of Parliament, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01002702.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/27






Action brought on 4 November 2021 — Lyubetskaya v Council
(Case T-556/21)
(2022/C 11/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Sviatlana Lyubetskaya (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus;










—


order the Council 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 the principle of personal responsibility. The applicant submits that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the prosecuting authority has failed to fulfil its duty to specify in what way the facts are attributable to the person concerned.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, based on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested measures lack any factual justification and merely draw conclusions that are founded solely on her status as a member of parliament.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular in the light of her status as a member of parliament.
Case C-662/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Booky.fi Oy
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, adult, age of majority, audiovisual programme, electronic commerce, import restriction, labelling, public morality, quantitative restriction, recording








C_2022024EN.01002201.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Booky.fi Oy
(Case C-662/21)
(2022/C 24/28)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Booky.fi Oy

Other party: Kansallinen audiovisuaalinen instituutti (KAVI)

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Article 36 TFEU, does Article 34 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Paragraph 5(1) of the Law on audiovisual programmes which requires that audiovisual programme media be classified in accordance with the Law on audiovisual programmes, and age rating labels based on that classification be added to the product information, already at the time when the audiovisual programme media are made available for sale in an online store, even though the audiovisual programme media have been classified and labelled in another Member State but have not yet been delivered to Finland?
Is it relevant to the assessment of the question that the Law on audiovisual programmes contains no provision on exceptions to classification and labelling on the ground that it has been ascertained that a purchaser of the audiovisual programme media is of full age and that, in the case of audiovisual programme media offered in an online store, the abovementioned requirement of reclassification and relabelling applies only where the programme is offered by entities or traders registered or established in Finland or by a person who is a Finnish national or is habitually resident in Finland, or if the decision to offer the programme was taken in Finland?










2.


If the proportionality of the above requirement of reclassification and relabelling requires that an exception may be made to that requirement on the ground that it has been ascertained that a purchaser of the audiovisual programme media is of full age, is it necessary to require, in the case of a sale to persons of full age, that there be absolute certainty as to the fact that the purchaser is of full age at the time when the audiovisual programme media is ordered and sold, or is it sufficient that the seller of the audiovisual programme media endeavours to ascertain that the purchaser is of full age?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10508 – HUTCHISON 3 INDONESIA / INDOSAT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 483/06
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Indonesia, economic concentration, merger control, mobile communication








C_2021483EN.01000601.xml










1.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 483/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10508 – HUTCHISON 3 INDONESIA / INDOSAT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 483/06)
On 4 November 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 policy’ 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 32021M10508. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 November 2021 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 November 2021 2021/C 447/04
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2021447EN.01001201.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/12






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 November 2021
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 November 2021
(2021/C 447/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1578 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4381 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84823 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9120 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0568 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8610 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,546 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,88 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5875 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9494 




TRY


Turkish lira


11,2219 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5574 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4386 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0114 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6220 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5627 




KRW


South Korean won


1 369,05 




ZAR


South African rand


17,8613 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4082 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5195 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 594,39 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8089 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,611 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,3463 




THB


Thai baht


38,624 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5663 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,0953 




INR


Indian rupee


86,2355 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10449 – KIA / ALMAVIVA) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 447/06
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Kuwait, economic concentration, health care, medical diagnosis, medical institution, merger control, sovereign wealth fund








C_2021447EN.01001401.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10449 – KIA / ALMAVIVA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 447/06)

1.   
On 25 October 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:






—


Kuwait Investment Authority (‘KIA’, Kuwait),










—


Almaviva Capital S.A.S. (‘Almaviva’, France).




KIA, through Wren House Infrastructure LP, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect sole control of the whole of Almaviva.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KIA: manages the sovereign wealth funds of the State of Kuwait as a global investor, with investments in all main geographical areas (including the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific) and asset classes (including real estate, private and public equity, fixed income and alternative investment markets across the globe),










—


for Almaviva: head of the Almaviva Group, active in the health sector and in particular operating diagnostics and hospital care services. Almaviva Group is active in France and has a limited activity in Canada.






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.10449 – KIA / ALMAVIVA
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.10451 – DP WORLD / IMPERIAL LOGISTICS) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 447/07
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, provision of services








C_2021447EN.01001601.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10451 – DP WORLD / IMPERIAL LOGISTICS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 447/07)

1.   
On 26 October 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:






—


DP World Limited (‘DP World’, United Arab Emirates),










—


Imperial Logistics Limited (‘Imperial Logistics’, South Africa).




DP World acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Imperial Logistics.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for DP World: port terminal operations, maritime services, free trade zones and cargo handling and logistics services (i.e., discharging and loading of vessels and related activities) worldwide.










—


for Imperial Logistics: transport and logistics supplier in various African countries and provider of contract logistics and freight services in the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom.






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 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.10451 – DP WORLD / IMPERIAL LOGISTICS
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 C-661/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, carriage of goods, establishment, fraud, right of establishment, road transport, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, transport licence








C_2022084EN.01002203.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 4 November 2021 — Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN
(Case C-661/21)
(2022/C 84/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Verbraeken J. en Zonen BV, PN

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Articles 3(1)(a) and 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, and Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the fact that an undertaking which obtains a road transport authorisation in a Member State of the European Union in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009 and No 1072/2009 and which therefore must have an effective and stable establishment in that Member State that this constitutes irrefutable proof that its registered office is situated in that Member State within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for the purposes of determining the applicable social security system, and are the authorities of the Member State of employment bound by that finding?










2.


Can the national court of the Member State of employment which determines that the road transport authorisation in question has been obtained by fraud disregard that authorisation, or must the authorities of the Member State of employment, on the basis of the finding of fraud, first request the withdrawal of that authorisation from the authorities which issued the authorisation?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72.
Special report No 24/2021 Performance-based financing in Cohesion policy: worthy ambitions, but obstacles remained in the 2014-2020 period 2021/C 447/05
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU budget, EU financing, EU investment, State aid, economic and social cohesion, programme budgeting








C_2021447EN.01001301.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/13






Special report No 24/2021
Performance-based financing in Cohesion policy: worthy ambitions, but obstacles remained in the 2014-2020 period
(2021/C 447/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 24/2021 ‘Performance-based financing in Cohesion policy: worthy ambitions, but obstacles remained in the 2014-2020 period’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu