do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-70/22: Action brought on 3 February 2022 — Novasol v ECHA
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: right to justice, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2022138EN.01002901.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/29






Action brought on 3 February 2022 — Novasol v ECHA
(Case T-70/22)
(2022/C 138/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Novasol (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: C. Alter and G. Bouton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ECHA’s decision SME D (2021)8531-DC, of 25 November 2021, in which it found that the applicant cannot be recognised as an SME and is not eligible for the reduced fees for a medium-sized enterprise, as claimed at the time of the submissions;










—


order ECHA to pay all 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 that ECHA erred in law in the contested decision, on the ground that it misinterpreted the legal rules applicable to the assessment of the size of small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) referred to in the REACH Regulation, (1) in Recommendation 2003/361 (2) and in Regulation No 340/2008. (3)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, in that the contested decision is based on an incorrect reading of the accuracy of the facts on which the classification as an SME is based, even though ECHA had all the information necessary to assess the applicant’s size.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration, in so far as, despite the detailed and documented observations made by the applicant in order to determine the dimensions of the enterprise, ECHA did not take any account of the arguments submitted.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

(2)  Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).
Case C-461/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 72 — Modification of contracts during their term — Transfer of a framework agreement — New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement — Whether need for a new procurement procedure)
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, liquidation, public procurement, supplier








C_2022128EN.01000201.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB
(Case C-461/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 72 - Modification of contracts during their term - Transfer of a framework agreement - New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement - Whether need for a new procurement procedure)
(2022/C 128/02)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which, following the insolvency of the initial contractor which led to its liquidation, has taken over only the rights and obligations of the initial contractor arising from a framework agreement concluded with a contracting authority must be regarded as having succeeded in part to that initial contractor, following corporate restructuring, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Case C-71/22 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2022 by CX against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-743/16 RENV II, CX v Commission
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022441EN.01000301.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/3






Appeal brought on 3 February 2022 by CX against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-743/16 RENV II, CX v Commission

(Case C-71/22 P)
(2022/C 441/03)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 29 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10590 – PAI PARTNERS / OTPP / VEONET) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 70/01
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, eye disease, medical institution, merger control, pension fund








C_2022070EN.01000101.xml










11.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10590 – PAI PARTNERS / OTPP / VEONET)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 70/01)
On 3 February 2022, 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 32022M10590. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-515/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B AG v Finanzamt A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 122 — Reduced rate for supplies of wood for use as firewood — Differentiation on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the goods — Types of wood intended for use as fuel which serve the same consumer need and are in competition with each other — Principle of fiscal neutrality)
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, VAT, fuel wood, supply, tax law, tax relief








C_2022128EN.01000301.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/3






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B AG v Finanzamt A
(Case C-515/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 122 - Reduced rate for supplies of wood for use as firewood - Differentiation on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the goods - Types of wood intended for use as fuel which serve the same consumer need and are in competition with each other - Principle of fiscal neutrality)
(2022/C 128/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B AG

Defendant: Finanzamt A

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 122 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of wood for use as firewood, within the meaning of that article, designates any wood which, on the basis of its objective properties, is intended exclusively for burning.










2.


Article 122 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which, in applying that article, establishes a reduced rate of value added tax for supplies of wood for use as firewood, may limit its scope as regards some categories of supplies of wood for use as firewood with reference to the Combined Nomenclature, subject to compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality.










3.


The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national law from excluding from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax the supply of wood chips, even though it grants that benefit to supplies of other types of wood for use as firewood, subject to wood chips not being interchangeable, from the point of view of the average consumer, with other types of wood for use as firewood, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 February 2022 2022/C 57/01
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022057EN.01000101.xml










3.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

2 February 2022
(2022/C 57/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1323 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,37 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4383 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83395 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3850 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0399 




ISK


Iceland króna


143,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9228 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,298 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5449 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9463 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,3011 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5828 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4330 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8245 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7010 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5254 




KRW


South Korean won


1 359,23 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3459 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2026 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5260 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 243,98 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7392 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,785 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,8150 




THB


Thai baht


37,575 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9677 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2134 




INR


Indian rupee


84,6130 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) Dissolution of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: The Member States
Subjects: European territorial cooperation, France, Spain, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, economic cooperation, local authority, regional authority, regional cooperation, regional development








C_2022056EN.01000101.xml










3.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/1






Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2)
Dissolution of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)

(Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19))

(2022/C 56/01)

Name: Agrupación Europea de Cooperación Territorial ‘Espacio Portalet’

Seat: Sallent de Gállego, ES

Countries involved: ES/FR

Dissolution: 5 May 2021

Name: Huesca Pirineos – Hautes Pyrénées (HP-HP)

Seat: Huesca, ES

Countries involved: ES/FR

Dissolution: 9 December 2020
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/114 of 26 January 2022 granting a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘SchwabEX-Guard’ (Official Journal of the European Union OJ L 19 of 28 January 2022)
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biocide, chemical product, insecticide, market approval, plant health control








L_2022024EN.01013601.xml










3.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 24/136







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/114 of 26 January 2022 granting a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘SchwabEX-Guard’
         

(Official Journal of the European Union 
OJ L 19 of 28 January 2022
)


On page 14, in the Annex, point 2.1:
for:

‘2.1.   Qualitative and quantitative information on the composition of the product











Common name


IUPAC name


Function


CAS number


EC number


Content (%)




(E)-1-(2-Chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-3- methyl-2-nitroguanidine (Clothianidin)


 


Active Substance


210880-92-5


433-460-1


0,526 




Pyriproxyfen


4-phenoxyphenyl (RS)-2-(2- pyridyloxy)propyl ether


Active Substance


95737-68-1


429-800-1


0,515 




Acetic acid


Ethanoic acid


Non-active substance


64-19-7


200-580-7


0,3 




Potassium sorbate


potassium (E,E)-hexa-2,4-dienoate


Non-active substance


24634-61-5


246-376-1


0,5 ’





read:

‘2.1.   Qualitative and quantitative information on the composition of the product











Common name


IUPAC name


Function


CAS number


EC number


Content (%)




Clothianidin


(E)-1-(2-Chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-3- methyl-2-nitroguanidine


Active Substance


210880-92-5


433-460-1


0,526 




Pyriproxyfen


4-phenoxyphenyl (RS)-2-(2- pyridyloxy)propyl ether


Active Substance


95737-68-1


429-800-1


0,515 




Acetic acid


Ethanoic acid


Non-active substance


64-19-7


200-580-7


0,3 




Potassium sorbate


potassium (E,E)-hexa-2,4-dienoate


Non-active substance


24634-61-5


246-376-1


0,5 ’
Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/153 of 3 February 2022 amending Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Afghanistan, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, humanitarian aid, international sanctions




L_2022025EN.01001701.xml










4.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 25/17








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2022/153
of 3 February 2022
         
amending Decision 2011/486/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2011/486/CFSP of 1 August 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain individuals, groups, undertakings and entities in view of the situation in Afghanistan (1),


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 1 August 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/486/CFSP.












(2)


On 22 December 2021, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2615 (2021) expressing deep concern regarding the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, including food insecurity, and recalling that women, children and minorities have been disproportionately affected.












(3)


The United Nations Security Council, in its Resolution 2615 (2021), decided that humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs in Afghanistan are not a violation of paragraph 1(a) of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2255 (2015) while strongly encouraging providers relying on UNSCR 2615 (2021) to use reasonable efforts to minimise the accrual of any benefits, whether as a result of direct provision or diversion, to individuals or entities designated on the Sanctions List under UNSCR 1988 (2011).












(4)


Decision 2011/486/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


Further action by the Union is necessary to implement certain measures in this Decision,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 4 of Decision 2011/486/CFSP, the following paragraph is added:


‘6.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the processing and payment of funds, other financial assets or economic resources, and the provision of goods and services necessary to ensure the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs in Afghanistan or to support such activities.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 3 February 2022.


For the Council


The President

J.-Y. LE DRIAN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 57.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10567 – ACE / MOSADEX / PHARMALOT COMPOUNDING) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 56/03
Date: 2022-02-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, wholesale trade








C_2022056EN.01000401.xml










3.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10567 – ACE / MOSADEX / PHARMALOT COMPOUNDING)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 56/03)

1.   
On 25 January 2022, 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:






—


Ace Holding B.V. (‘Ace’, Netherlands), controlled by GMC VI B.V. (Netherlands), Quadrum Investment Fund III B.V. (Netherlands) and Coöperatieve Gilde Healthcare Services U.A. (Netherlands),










—


Mosadex Holding B.V. (‘Mosadex’, Netherlands),










—


Pharmalot Compounding B.V. (‘Pharmalot’, Netherlands), controlled by Mosadex and Basic Pharma Holding B.V. (Netherlands).




Ace and Mosadex will acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Pharmalot.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Ace is active in the development, production, registration and sale of medicines for small patient population or niche indications,










—


Mosadex is active in the sourcing and wholesale of medicines, medical devices and health products,










—


Pharmalot is active in the production and supply of pharmacy preparations.






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.10567 – ACE / MOSADEX / PHARMALOT COMPOUNDING
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.