do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of open competition
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), data processing, decommissioning of power stations, job vacancy, nuclear research, recruitment, scientific research








C_2019068EN.01002701.xml










21.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/27






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2019/C 68/07)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AD/371/19 — SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS (AD 7)




in the following fields:






1.


QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE POLICY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION










2.


DATA SCIENCE APPLICATIONS










3.


MODELLING FOR POLICY










4.


DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE, TELECOMMUNICATION AND REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS










5.


SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT & COMMUNICATION










6.


NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DECOMMISSIONING




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 68 A of 21 February 2019.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, chromium, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating, oxide








C_2019068EN.01000401.xml










21.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/4






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 68/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised uses


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 1057


14 February 2019


chromium trioxide
EC No 215-607-8;
CAS No 1333-82-0


Hansgrohe SE, Auestr. 5-9, 77761, Schiltach, Germany


REACH/19/2/0


Use for electroplating of different types of substrates with the purpose to create a long-lasting high durability surface with bright (shiny) or matte look (functional electroplating with decorative character).


14 February 2031


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.




REACH/19/2/1


Use for a pre-treatment step (etching) in the electroplating process.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 February 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40023 Cross-border access to pay-tv — Rapporteur: Poland
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, audiovisual industry, broadcasting, control of restrictive practices, pay television, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, restriction on competition, trade licence








C_2019132EN.01000401.xml










9.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/4






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 February 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40023 Cross-border access to pay-tv
Rapporteur: Poland
(2019/C 132/04)

(1)   

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 6 February 2019 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



(2)   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning The Walt Disney Company, The Walt Disney Company Limited (together ‘Disney’), Comcast Corporation, Universal Studios International B.V., Universal Studios Limited (together ‘NBCUniversal’), Sony Corporation, CPT Holdings, Inc., Colgems Productions Limited (together ‘Sony Pictures’), Warner Media, LLC., Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. (together ‘Warner Bros.’) (Disney, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures and Warner Bros together ‘the Studios’), Sky Limited and Sky UK Limited (together ‘Sky’) can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



(3)   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by each of the Studios and Sky are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on each of the Studios and Sky.



(4)   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by each of the Studios and Sky, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against each of the Studios and Sky, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



(5)   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019068EN.01000301.xml










21.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 February 2019
(2019/C 68/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1342 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4614 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86945 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5703 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1342 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7335 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,679 




HUF


Hungarian forint


317,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3445 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7567 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0190 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5844 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4956 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9026 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6513 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5326 




KRW


South Korean won


1 273,47 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0354 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6244 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4135 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 924,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6183 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,003 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,5774 




THB


Thai baht


35,268 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2019 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7301 




INR


Indian rupee


80,7035 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-146/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 21 February 2019 — SCT, d.d., in bankruptcy v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, bankruptcy, basis of tax assessment, claim, tax collection, tax law, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2019148EN.01002701.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 21 February 2019 — SCT, d.d., in bankruptcy v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-146/19)
(2019/C 148/25)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SCT, d.d., in bankruptcy

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as permitting derogation from the right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes even with respect to cases of definitive non-payment, where such definitive non-payment is a consequence of a failure on the part of the taxable person liable for the VAT to take proper steps, such as lodging a claim in bankruptcy proceedings commenced against his debtor, as in the present case?










2.


If such derogation from the right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes is permissible, must there nevertheless be a right to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes on the ground of non-payment where the taxable person is able to demonstrate that, even if he had lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, it would not have been satisfied, or is able to demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds for not lodging a claim?










3.


Does Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive have direct effect even if the legislature of a Member State has exceeded the scope of the possibilities for derogation established by Article 90(2)?
Case C-152/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-827/14, Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, domestic market, dominant position, market access, parent company, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), subsidiary, telecommunications








C_2019164EN.01002301.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/23






Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-827/14, Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission
(Case C-152/19 P)
(2019/C 164/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG (represented by: D. Schroeder and K. Apel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Slovanet, a.s.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-827/14 in so far as it dismisses the action;










—


annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom) as corrected by Commission Decisions C(2014) 10119 final and C(2015) 2484 final of 16 December 2014 and 17 April 2015 in so far as it relates to the appellant or, in the alternative, annul or further reduce the fines imposed on the appellant;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.
First, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the legal principle according to which it is necessary, for a refusal of access, that the access sought is indispensable for activity on a downstream market and, consequently, failed to apply that principle and thereby incorrectly applied it.
Secondly, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the legal principle that the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company only where the parent company has actually exercised a decisive influence.
Thirdly, the General Court failed to apply and thereby incorrectly applied the legal principle that the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company only where the subsidiary has carried out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by its parent company.
Fourthly, the General Court incorrectly applied the legal principle that the right to be heard must be respected in administrative proceedings.