do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 5 November 2021 2021/C 451/05
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021451EN.01000501.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 November 2021
(2021/C 451/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1519 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,98 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4376 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85545 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9033 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0559 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8878 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,275 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,50 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6037 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9496 




TRY


Turkish lira


11,1858 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5594 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4341 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9670 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6242 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5581 




KRW


South Korean won


1 366,75 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5039 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3756 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5218 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 504,97 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7919 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,949 




RUB


Russian rouble


82,0294 




THB


Thai baht


38,341 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4193 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6152 




INR


Indian rupee


85,5415 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10446 – SWISS LIFE HOLDING / GELSENWASSER / INFRAREAL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 470/02
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: business park, economic concentration, energy supply, gas supply, holding company, insurance, investment company, merger control, water management, water supply








C_2021470EN.01000201.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 470/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10446 – SWISS LIFE HOLDING / GELSENWASSER / INFRAREAL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 470/02)
On 8 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 32021M10446. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-718/21: Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022002EN.01005201.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/52






Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)
(Case T-718/21)
(2022/C 2/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Katarzyna Kaczorowska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Marcelle Inc. (Lachine, Quebec, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MAESELLE — Application for registration No 18 130 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 671/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of Opposition Division dated 15/02/2021 in opposition proceedings No B 3 108 698 with respect to all the goods and services for which the opposition has been upheld;










—


refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register the trade mark at issue in respect of all the goods and services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10304 – Thermo Fisher / PPD) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 451/07
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health service, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, research body








C_2021451EN.01000801.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10304 – Thermo Fisher / PPD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 451/07)

1.   
On 29 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:






—


Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (‘Thermo Fisher’, US),










—


PPD, Inc. (‘PPD’, US).




Thermo Fisher acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of PPD.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Thermo Fisher: a global manufacturer and supplier of a broad range of analytical, research and bioprocessing products, and pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing services,










—


for PPD: a provider of contract research organisation (‘CRO’) services, i.e. services that support pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the organisation and evaluation of clinical trials, and laboratory services.






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.10304 – Thermo Fisher / PPD
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’).
Case T-717/21: Action brought on 8 November 2021 — ICA Traffic v Commission
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: decontamination, delivery, equal treatment, legality, robotics, robotisation, supplies contract, transparency in decision-making








C_2022002EN.01005102.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/51






Action brought on 8 November 2021 — ICA Traffic v Commission
(Case T-717/21)
(2022/C 2/71)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ICA Traffic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig and C. Vogt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision in so far as the framework agreement with UVD Robots APS concerning delivery of up to 200 disinfection robots ceased to have effect when the maximum quantity was reached;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
The decision of the European Commission, notified in the press release of 21 September 2021, to procure a further 100 robots despite the fact that the framework agreement has ceased to have effect infringes the principle of legality under EU law, enshrined in primary law in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in conjunction with Article 264 TFEU.
In Case C-23/20, (1) the European Court of Justice ruled that once the maximum quantity specified in the contract notice was reached, the framework agreement ceased to have effect. The decision of the European Commission to now order a further 100 disinfection robots, on the basis of the framework agreement with UVD Robots APS concerning delivery of up to 200 disinfection robots, infringes Article 49 of Directive 2014/24/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and also Annex V, Part C, points 7, 8 and 10(a) in conjunction with Article 33 thereof and the principles of equal treatment and transparency set out in Article 18(1) of that directive.


(1)  Judgment of 17 June 2021, Simonsen & Weel, C-23/20, EU:C:2021:490.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission 2021/C 451 I/01
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








CI2021451EN.01000101.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 451/1






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission
(2021/C 451 I/01)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






i.


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and










ii.


made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:






i.


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 14 October 2021 – https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/88th-management-board-web-meeting, and










ii.


the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg




EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10500 – PSPIB / ADIC / LOCAL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 483/04
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, property development, property leasing, real estate business








C_2021483EN.01000401.xml










1.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 483/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10500 – PSPIB / ADIC / LOCAL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 483/04)
On 8 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 32021M10500. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-716/21: Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022002EN.01005101.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/51






Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)
(Case T-716/21)
(2022/C 2/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Katarzyna Kaczorowska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Marcelle Inc. (Lachine, Quebec, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark MAESELLE– Application for registration No 18 131 833

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 670/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of Opposition Division dated 15/02/2021 in opposition proceedings No B 3 108 583 with respect to all the goods and services for which the opposition has been upheld;










—


refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register the trade mark at issue in respect of all the goods and services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10478 – CPP INVESTMENTS / BC PARTNERS / CERAMTEC) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 461/03
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: ceramics, consultancy, economic concentration, education, financial services, health care, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2021461EN.01000301.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 461/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10478 – CPP INVESTMENTS / BC PARTNERS / CERAMTEC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 461/03)
On 8 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 32021M10478. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-494/20: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2021 — Satabank v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of less significant credit institutions — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Specific tasks of the ECB — Refusal to carry out direct prudential supervision — Refusal to give instructions to the Competent Person — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, financial supervision, operation of the Institutions








C_2022037EN.01003201.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/32






Order of the General Court of 8 November 2021 — Satabank v ECB
(Case T-494/20) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of less significant credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Specific tasks of the ECB - Refusal to carry out direct prudential supervision - Refusal to give instructions to the Competent Person - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 37/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Satabank plc (St Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and A. Lefterov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s decision of 15 May 2020 refusing to ensure direct supervision of the applicant and to give instructions to the Competent Person concerning it.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Satabank plc shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case C-667/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2021 — ZQ v Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung Nordrhein, a body governed by public law
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, health insurance, medical data, personal data, professional qualifications, protection of privacy








C_2022095EN.01001301.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2021 — ZQ v Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung Nordrhein, a body governed by public law
(Case C-667/21)
(2022/C 95/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ZQ

Defendant: Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung Nordrhein, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 9(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as prohibiting a medical service of a health insurance fund from processing its employee’s data concerning health which are a prerequisite for the assessment of that employee’s working capacity?










2.


If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative, with the consequence that an exception to the prohibition on the processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) of the GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) of the GDPR: in a case such as the present one, are there further data protection requirements, beyond the conditions set out in Article 9(3) of the GDPR, that must be complied with, and, if so, which ones?










3.


If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative, with the consequence that an exception to the prohibition on the processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) of the GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) of the GDPR: does the permissibility or lawfulness of the processing of data concerning health depend on the fulfilment of at least one of the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of the GDPR?










4.


Does Article 82(1) of the GDPR have a specific or general preventive character, and must that be taken into account in the assessment of the amount of non-material damage to be compensated at the expense of the controller or processor on the basis of Article 82(1) of the GDPR?










5.


Is the degree of fault on the part of the controller or processor a decisive factor in the assessment of the amount of non-material damage to be compensated on the basis of Article 82(1) of the GDPR? In particular, can non-existent or minor fault on the part of the controller or processor be taken into account in their favour?






(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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10516 – BAIN CAPITAL / ITP AERO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 461/04
Date: 2021-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, investment company, maintenance, merger control








C_2021461EN.01000401.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 461/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10516 – BAIN CAPITAL / ITP AERO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 461/04)
On 8 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 32021M10516. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.