do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9435 — ADNOC/OCI/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 343/04
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, distributor, economic concentration, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, storage of hydrocarbons








C_2020343EN.01000801.xml










15.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/8






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9435 — ADNOC/OCI/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 343/04)
On 2 September 2019, 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 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 32019M9435. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9482 — SKT/Comcast/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic game, information technology industry, mass media, merger control, professional sport, provision of services, security services, telecommunications








C_2019318EN.01000302.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9482 — SKT/Comcast/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 318/06)
On 2 September 2019, 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 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 32019M9482. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-648/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, damages, indemnification, traveller








C_2019399EN.01002801.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-648/19)
(2019/C 399/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Erding

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

In order to have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) is it a condition that the passenger boards the flight even where it is established prior to departure that there will be a long delay to that flight?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9486 — GBL/Webhelp) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, information technology, investment company, merger control, outsourcing, provision of services








C_2019304EN.01000101.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9486 — GBL/Webhelp)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 304/01)
On 2 September 2019, 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 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 32019M9486. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-660/19 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2019 by Mr Klaus Nonnemacher against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 in Case T-390/18 Klaus Nonnemacher v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01002301.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/23






Appeal brought on 2 September 2019 by Mr Klaus Nonnemacher against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 in Case T-390/18 Klaus Nonnemacher v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-660/19 P)
(2020/C 10/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Klaus Nonnemacher (represented by: C. Rohnke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Paul Ingram
By order of 19 November 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Case C-659/19 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2019 by Mr Klaus Nonnemacher against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2019 in Case T-389/18 Klaus Nonnemacher v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01002202.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/22






Appeal brought on 2 September 2019 by Mr Klaus Nonnemacher against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2019 in Case T-389/18 Klaus Nonnemacher v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-659/19 P)
(2020/C 10/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Klaus Nonnemacher (represented by: C. Rohnke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Paul Ingram
By order of 19 November 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019294EN.01000201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 August 2019
(2019/C 294/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1036 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,28 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4562 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90565 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8395 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0909 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0380 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,914 




HUF


Hungarian forint


331,07 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3812 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7284 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,4418 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6398 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4658 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6549 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7490 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5312 




KRW


South Korean won


1 333,21 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8299 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8908 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4023 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 654,57 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6412 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,462 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,4150 




THB


Thai baht


33,754 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5879 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1567 




INR


Indian rupee


78,8365 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-652/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 September 2019 — KO v Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, equal treatment, full-time employment, indemnification, job cuts, temporary employment, unfair dismissal








C_2019399EN.01002901.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 September 2019 — KO v Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA
(Case C-652/19)
(2019/C 399/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KO

Defendant: Fallimento Consulmarketing SpA

Questions referred







1.


Do the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in clause 4 of Directive 99/70/EC (1) on employment conditions preclude the legal provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 10 of Decreto Legislativo 23/15 (Legislative Decree No 23/15), which, with regard to collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, provide for a dual and differentiated system of protection whereby in the same procedure appropriate, effective and dissuasive protection is provided for employment relationships of indefinite duration created prior to 7 March 2015 — for which reinstatement and the payment of employer’s contributions are envisaged as possible remedies — yet limited compensation only, between maximum and minimum amounts, is offered for fixed-term employment relationships having the same length of service, in that they were created prior to that date but converted to an open-ended contract after 7 March 2015, which is a less effective and dissuasive form of protection?










2.


Do the provisions contained in Articles 20 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Directive 98/59/EC (2) preclude a legal provision such as Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 23/15 which introduces exclusively for workers hired (or whose fixed-term contract was converted) for an indefinite duration after 7 March 2015 an arrangement whereby, in the event of collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, reinstatement is not an option — unlike for the other similar employment relationships established beforehand and involved in the same procedure — and which instead introduces a concurrent system of compensation only which is insufficient to make good the financial consequences resulting from the loss of employment and which is inferior to the other coexisting model, applied to other workers whose relationships have the same characteristics with the sole exception of the date of conversion or creation?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

(2)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).
Case C-651/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2019 — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
Date: 2019-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, asylum seeker, foreign national, legal domicile, limitation of legal proceedings, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2019372EN.01002301.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2019 — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
(Case C-651/19)
(2019/C 372/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: JP

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (1) (recast), by virtue of which applicants must be given a right to an effective remedy against decisions ‘taken on their application for international protection’, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule of national procedure, such as Article 39/57 of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals, read in conjunction with Article 51/2, 5o of the first subparagraph of Article 57/6(3) and Article 57/6/2(1) of that law, establishing a time limit of 10 ‘calendar’ days, starting from the notification of the administrative decision, for bringing an action against a decision declaring a subsequent application for international protection lodged by a third-country national inadmissible, in particular where that notification was made to the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons where the applicant is ‘deemed’ by law to have elected a domicile?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.