do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Get EU funding to promote your agrifood products abroad : eligibility of applicants.
Date: 2022-03-22
Institutions: European Research Executive Agency
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, agricultural product, agro-industry, producer organisation, trade promotion

GET EU FUNDING
TO PROMOTE 
YOUR AGRIFOOD
PRODUCTS
ABROAD.

Eligibility of applicants

Who is eligible?

Only entities legally established in EU Member States are 
eligible to apply. There are several types of organisations which 
are eligible, including:

Trade or inter-trade organisations which are 
representative of the related sector at national or EU level. 
To be representative of the sector, organisations must 
account for at least half of the sector’s producers, or half 
of the volume or value of marketable production of the 
products or sector. A percentage lower than 50% may be 
accepted if justified, or where it is an interbranch organisation 
recognised by the EU Member State.

Producer organisations or associations of producer 
organisations which have been recognised by their 
Member State in accordance with Articles 154 or 156 
of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 or with Article 14 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013.

Agri-food bodies which are involved in a mission 
of public interest in charge of promotion and have a 
representative of the product or sector among their 
members. This condition does not apply in the case 
of programmes carried out after a loss of consumer 
confidence. Agri-food bodies must have been legally 
established in a Member State for a minimum of 2 years. 

Eligible organisations must 
also meet the following 
requirements:

Have the necessary technical, financial, and professional 
resources to carry out the programme effectively.

Not have received support for the same campaign on more 
than 2 consecutive occasions. 

Examples of ineligible 
applicants:

Applicant organisations which are not representative 
of the product or sector promoted.

Private companies in general may not participate -  
please consult the FAQs for information on exceptions. 

Non-EU applicants.

What legal requirements 
must be met?

Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014  
of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 2015/1829.

Still not sure if you are eligible? Assess your eligibility here.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 © European Union, 2022 
PDF ISBN 978-92-95080-31-7    JW-07-22-152-EN-N   DOI 10.2848/504561
Case C-213/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 March 2022 — Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas, IP v CS
Date: 2022-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, afforestation, aid to agriculture, bad weather, eligibility criteria, financial loss, principle of proportionality, wooded area








C_2022266EN.01001001.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 22 March 2022 — Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas, IP v CS
(Case C-213/22)
(2022/C 266/12)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas, IP

Respondent: CS

Questions referred







1.


May repayment of the maintenance costs and premiums for loss of income provided for in Article 3(b) and (c) respectively of Regulation No 2080/92 (1) of 30 June 1992 be required where the beneficiary proves that the afforestation conditions required by the national aid programme were not met for reasons beyond his or her control and he or she made every effort to achieve the outcome?










2.


Is the outcome produced by the rules interpreting Article 7(b) of Ministerial Order No 199/94 in conjunction with Article 26 of that order, according to which the occurrence of adverse weather conditions in the years following the evaluation year (which is the year following the year of the restocking) results in partial repayment of the premiums, whereas where the same outcomes, caused by the same adverse weather conditions, occur in the year following the restocking, this results in total loss of entitlement to premiums, consistent with the rules of EU law?










3.


Must the outcome established in Article 7(1)(b) of Ministerial Order No 199/94, which results in total loss of the beneficiary’s entitlements to premiums for maintenance and loss of income where the reforestation density established in Annex C is not achieved, with no scope for a proportional reduction in payment of the aforementioned premiums where the outcome can be attributed to external factors such as the weather, be considered contrary to the proportionality principle as a general principle of the European Union, as appears to be implied (a contrario sensu) by the judgment in József Lingurâr (C-315/16, paragraphs 29 and 35)?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture (OJ 1922 L 215, p. 96).
Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma 2022/C 129/05
Date: 2022-03-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Myanmar/Burma, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022129EN.01001401.xml










22.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/14






Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma
(2022/C 129/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Min Aung Hlaing (No 15), Mr. Myint Swe (No 16), Mr. Soe Win (No 17), Mr. Mya Tun Oo (No 20), Mr Maung Maung Kyaw (No 23), U Chit Naing (No 35), Mr. Soe Htut (No 36), Mr. Tun Tun Naung (No 37) and Mr. Win Shein (No 38), persons appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1) and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with a new statement of reasons. These persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for their designation, by 29 March 2022, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu.


(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(2)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 21 March 2022 2022/C 129/06
Date: 2022-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022129EN.01001501.xml










22.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/15






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 March 2022
(2022/C 129/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1038 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4411 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83775 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4088 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0278 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6575 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,683 




HUF


Hungarian forint


374,48 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6960 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9470 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,3773 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4897 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3898 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6387 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5997 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4960 




KRW


South Korean won


1 342,62 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4543 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0152 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5733 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 826,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6415 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,817 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,038 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5020 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,4800 




INR


Indian rupee


84,1835 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-214/22: Action brought on 22 March 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2022-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, criminal proceedings, infringement of EU law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national implementing measure, offence, organised crime, ownership, seizure of goods








C_2022191EN.01002502.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/25






Action brought on 22 March 2022 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-214/22)
(2022/C 191/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, A. Azéma, I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt, by 4 October 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 8(7), Article 9 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;










—


impose on Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 7 096,50 per day from the date of delivery of the judgement in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Article 8(7), Article 9 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/42;










—


order Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union allows Member States to recover more easily the benefits attained by criminals as a result of serious organised crime. Member States were obliged to transpose the directive by 4 October 2016. The Commission opened the infringement procedure against Luxembourg in November 2016 and then sent it a reasoned opinion in March 2019. To date, Luxembourg has not notified the Commission of complete transposition of the directive into its national law.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39.