do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11394 – PFEIFER & LANGEN IHKG GROUP / RÜGENWALDER)
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: European Economic Area, beverage, distributor, economic concentration, fish, food substitute, meat, meat product, merger control, sugar industry








C_202402881EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2881


23.4.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11394 – PFEIFER & LANGEN IHKG GROUP / RÜGENWALDER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2881)

On 22 March 2024, 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32024M11394. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2881/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system (OJ L 130, 16.5.2023)
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, EU environmental policy, adaptation to climate change, auction sale, greenhouse gas, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions, reserves, tradeable emission permit








L_202490176EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2023/959


22.3.2024






Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 16 May 2023
)


On page 194, Article 3(1), second subparagraph, point (a):
for:






‘(a)


Article 1, point (3), points (ae) to (ai), of this Directive;’,




read:






‘(a)


Article 1, point (3)(d), of this Directive regarding Article 3, points (ae) to (ai), of Directive 2003/87/EC as added by that point;’.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/959/corrigendum/2024-03-22/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-221/24, Naturvårdsverket: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Mark- och miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 March 2024 - Naturvårdsverket v UQ
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, export of waste, ownership, waste disposal








C_202403315EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3315


3.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Mark- och miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 March 2024 - Naturvårdsverket v UQ


(Case C-221/24, Naturvårdsverket)

(C/2024/3315)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Mark- och miljööverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Naturvårdsverket

Respondent: UQ

Questions referred







1.


Does a take-back under Article 24(2)(c) of the Waste Shipment Regulation (1) include a requirement or possibility for the authority of dispatch to recover or dispose of the waste after take-back, where a notification and a movement document stating how the waste is to be treated in the country of destination have been drawn up for the return shipment?










2.


Under what circumstances may Article 24(2)(d) be applied by the authority of dispatch to recover or dispose of the waste in an illegal shipment of waste in the country of dispatch? How does point (d) relate to point (c), for example may take-back and recovery/disposal be effected pursuant to points (c) and (d) together or does the application of one point require that the procedure under the immediately preceding point has not been possible?










3.


If Article 24(2) of the Waste Shipment Regulation may be interpreted as meaning that, following take-back, the authority of dispatch has the ultimate power of disposal over the waste, even where the original sender wishes to regain the waste, is such an interpretation compatible with the protection of property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3315/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11497 – CIP / MIESCOR / PHPL / PHC)
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Philippines, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, joint venture, lease, merger control, service, telecommunications equipment








C_202402524EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2524


9.4.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11497 – CIP / MIESCOR / PHPL / PHC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2524)

On 22 March 2024, 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32024M11497. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2524/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-165/24: Action brought on 22 March 2024 – Trabelsi v Council
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Tunisia, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal expenses, natural person, right to an effective remedy








C_202404088EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4088


8.7.2024






Action brought on 22 March 2024 – Trabelsi v Council


(Case T-165/24)

(C/2024/4088)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Belhassen Ben Mohamed Ben Rhouma Trabelsi (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and M. Hazguer, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare admissible and well-founded the requests of Mr Belhassen Ben Mohamed Ben Rhouma Trabelsi in respect of the present application;










—


annul, consequently, the annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures to the extent they concern the applicant – file No 8 – in so far as that annex was extended, without reason, by Council Decision 2024/426 of 29 January 2024, and the effects thereof;










—


order the Council to pay Mr Belhassen Ben Mohamed Ben Rhouma Trabelsi twenty thousand euros (EUR 20 000) to cover payment of his legal costs;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





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 rights of the defence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, based on the right to effective judicial protection.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4088/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-220/24, Aeroportul Internaţional Avram Iancu Cluj: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 22 March 2024 – Regia Autonomă Aeroportul Internațional Avram Iancu Cluj v Consiliul Concurenței
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, dominant position, ground handling, market access, provision of services








C_202404075EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4075


8.7.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 22 March 2024 – Regia Autonomă Aeroportul Internațional ‘Avram Iancu’ Cluj v Consiliul Concurenței


(Case C-220/24, Aeroportul Internaţional ‘Avram Iancu’ Cluj)

(C/2024/4075)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Regia Autonomă Aeroportul Internațional ‘Avram Iancu’ Cluj

Respondent: Consiliul Concurenței

Intervener in support of the appellant: Sindicatul Independent al Aeroportului Cluj

Intervener in support of the respondent: Romanian Airport Services S.A.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, (1) in particular Articles 1, 6 and 7 thereof, be regarded as precluding the application of Article 102 TFEU – and of any other rule having the same content – in situations concerning a refusal of access to the airport infrastructure necessary for the provision of groundhandling services at [EU] airports which have not reached the threshold of two million passengers?


(1)  Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4075/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-222/24, Naturvårdsverket: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Mark- och miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 March 2024 – Naturvårdsverket v IC
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, export of waste, ownership, waste disposal








C_202403316EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3316


3.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Mark- och miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 March 2024 – Naturvårdsverket v IC


(Case C-222/24, Naturvårdsverket)

(C/2024/3316)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Mark- och miljööverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Naturvårdsverket

Respondent: IC

Questions referred







1.


Does a take-back under Article 24(2)(c) of the Waste Shipment Regulation (1) include a requirement or possibility for the authority of dispatch to recover or dispose of the waste after take-back, where a notification and a movement document stating how the waste is to be treated in the country of destination have been drawn up for the return shipment?










2.


Under what circumstances may Article 24(2)(d) be applied by the authority of dispatch to recover or dispose of the waste in an illegal shipment of waste in the country of dispatch? How does point (d) relate to point (c), for example may take-back and recovery/disposal be effected pursuant to points (c) and (d) together or does the application of one point require that the procedure under the immediately preceding point has not been possible?










3.


If Article 24(2) of the Waste Shipment Regulation may be interpreted as meaning that, following take-back, the authority of dispatch has the ultimate power of disposal over the waste, even where the original sender wishes to regain the waste, is such an interpretation compatible with the protection of property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3316/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-219/24, Tallinna linn: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 22 March 2024 – A and Others v Tallinna linn
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, health risk, occupational safety, staff, vaccination, work contract








C_202403163EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3163


21.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 22 March 2024 – A and Others v Tallinna linn


(Case C-219/24, Tallinna linn)

(C/2024/3163)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A and Others

Defendant: Tallinna linn

Questions referred

Can Article 14(3) of Directive 2000/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work and points 1 and 2 of Annex VII thereto, read in conjunction with recital 8, Article 1(1) and Article 3(1) and (2) of that directive, be interpreted as compatible with a provision whereby employers are entitled to require their employees who are exposed to biological agents to undergo vaccination?
Explanatory questions:






(a)


Does vaccination constitute a measure of health protection at work within the meaning of Article 14(3) of Directive 2000/54/EC which the employer may order in the context of an existing employment contract without the consent of the worker exposed to biological agents?










(b)


Is it compatible with Article 1(3), Article 6(1) and (2)(a) and (g), and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC (2) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and with Article 3(1), Article 31(1) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for an employer to make vaccination compulsory in the context of an existing employment contract?






(1)  
            OJ 2000 L 262, p. 21.

(2)  
            OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3163/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 21 March 2024
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202401939EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1939


22.3.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            21 March 2024
         
(C/2024/1939)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0907 




JPY


Japanese yen


164,96 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4579 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85678 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,3645 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9766 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,5430 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,243 




HUF


Hungarian forint


393,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3028 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9734 




TRY


Turkish lira


34,9445 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6535 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4736 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5300 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7963 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4619 




KRW


South Korean won


1 449,01 




ZAR


South African rand


20,4181 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8520 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 092,14 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1424 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,033 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


39,396 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4210 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,2610 




INR


Indian rupee


90,6560 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1939/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-161/24: Action brought on 22 March 2024 – NTT Data Belgique and Others v EIB
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, consortium, consultancy, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, public procurement, right to an effective remedy, tendering








C_202403339EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3339


3.6.2024






Action brought on 22 March 2024 – NTT Data Belgique and Others v EIB


(Case T-161/24)

(C/2024/3339)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: NTT Data Belgique (Brussels, Belgium), Sopra Steria PSF Luxembourg SA (Leudelange, Luxembourg), UniSystems Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Netcompany – Intrasoft (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, L. Lence de Frutos, R. Fernández de la Cruz and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the EIB’s decision of 4 March 2024 rejecting OMNIA Consortium’s bid for procurement procedure with reference CFT-1699 - IT Consultancy for EIB-specific applications (TAILOR) as being abnormally low;










—


order the EIB to pay all the legal fees and costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the EIB by basing its decision to reject the tender (i) on the salaries paid by the applicants and (ii) on the margins generated by OMNIA consortium. Furthermore, the contested decision is inconsistent with the EIB’s own criterion under other similar and recent procurement procedures where almost identical offers were proposed and accepted.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality on the grounds that (i) the exclusion of the tender, based solely on the prices offered by OMNIA consortium, is disproportionate; and (ii) the EIB does not seem to have taken into account other factors that are relevant in the light of the services provided under the contract to be concluded following the procurement procedure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On the one hand, the contested decision does not contain the reasoning followed by the EIB to adopt such measure. On the other hand, the request for clarifications submitted by the EIB on 1 September 2023 does not adequately explain why the EIB considered the on-site rates proposed by the applicants to be abnormally low; therefore, the applicants were not in a position fully and effectively to show that the tender is genuine.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3339/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/999 of 22 March 2024 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Abricot des Baronnies (PGI)]
Date: 2024-03-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, stone fruit








L_202400999EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2024/999


2.4.2024







            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2024/999
of 22 March 2024
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Abricot des Baronnies’ (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Abricot des Baronnies’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Abricot des Baronnies’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Abricot des Baronnies’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6: Fruit, vegetables, and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 March 2024.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C, C/2023/1484, 8.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1484/oj.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/999/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)