do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-825/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2019 — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, customs formalities, import licence








C_2020077EN.01002101.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2019 — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt
(Case C-825/19)
(2020/C 77/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 211(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1, ‘the UCC’) (1)to be interpreted as applying only to applications whose retroactive authorisation period would be valid as from 1 May 2016?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: In the case of applications for retroactive authorisation whose authorisation period is before 1 May 2016, is Article 211 of the UCC to be applied only if the retroactive authorisation was applied for before the new law entered into force, but the customs authorities refused such applications for the first time after 1 May 2016?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the negative: In the case of applications for retroactive authorisation whose authorisation period is before 1 May 2016, is Article 211 of the UCC to be applied even if the customs authorities refused such applications both before and after 1 May 2016 (with different reasoning)?










4.


If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and Question 3 is answered in the negative: Is Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that






(a)


an authorisation could be granted with retroactive effect from the date the original authorisation expired, as provided for in Article 294(3), for a maximum retroactive period of one year before the date the application was submitted and










(b)


the proof of economic need provided for in Article 294(3) must also exist and attempted deception or obvious negligence be excluded in the case of the successive authorisation under Article 294(2)?










(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
Case C-233/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel — Belgium) — Zubair Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 20(4) and (5) — Serious breach of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as seriously violent behaviour — Scope of the Member States’ right to determine the sanctions applicable — Unaccompanied minor — Reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions)
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, freedom of self-determination, principle of proportionality, refugee, right of asylum, social facilities, violence, young person








C_2020010EN.01000801.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel — Belgium) — Zubair Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers
(Case C-233/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 20(4) and (5) - Serious breach of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as seriously violent behaviour - Scope of the Member States’ right to determine the sanctions applicable - Unaccompanied minor - Reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions)
(2020/C 10/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zubair Haqbin

Defendant: Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(4) and (5) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, read in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot, among the sanctions that may be imposed on an applicant for serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as seriously violent behaviour, provide for a sanction consisting in the withdrawal, even temporary, of material reception conditions, within the meaning of Article 2(f) and (g) of the directive, relating to housing, food or clothing, in so far as it would have the effect of depriving the applicant of the possibility of meeting his or her most basic needs. The imposition of other sanctions under Article 20(4) of the directive must, under all circumstances, comply with the conditions laid down in Article 20(5) thereof, including those concerning the principle of proportionality and respect for human dignity. In the case of an unaccompanied minor, those sanctions must, in the light, inter alia, of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be determined by taking particular account of the best interests of the child.


(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Special Report No 19/2019 INEA: benefits delivered but CEF shortcomings to be addressed2019/C 384/05
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, energy grid, executive agency, financial control, project of common interest, trans-European network, transmission network, transport infrastructure, transport network








C_2019384EN.01000501.xml










12.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/5






Special Report No 19/2019
‘INEA: benefits delivered but CEF shortcomings to be addressed’
(2019/C 384/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 19/2019 ‘INEA: benefits delivered but CEF shortcomings to be addressed’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-537/19: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2019 — DK v GSA
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, data protection, natural person, personal data, provision of documents, public safety, staff








C_2020019EN.01005802.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/58






Order of the General Court of 12 November 2019 — DK v GSA
(Case T-537/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/71)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case C-261/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Directive 85/337/EEC — Consent for, and construction of, a wind farm — Project likely to have significant effects on the environment — Absence of a prior environmental impact assessment — Obligation to regularise — Article 260(2) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a penalty payment and a lump sum)
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building industry, environmental impact, environmental protection, periodic penalty payment, sanction (EU)








C_2020010EN.01001001.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/10






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-261/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Directive 85/337/EEC - Consent for, and construction of, a wind farm - Project likely to have significant effects on the environment - Absence of a prior environmental impact assessment - Obligation to regularise - Article 260(2) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a penalty payment and a lump sum)
(2020/C 10/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and J. Tomkin, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, Agents, and by J. Connolly and G. Simons, Senior Counsel, and G. Gilmore, Barrister-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take all measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 3 July 2008, Commission v Ireland (C-215/06, EU:C:2008:380), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










2.


Orders Ireland to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 5 000 000;










3.


Orders Ireland to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 15 000 per day from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the date of compliance with the judgment of 3 July 2008, Commission v Ireland (C-215/06, EU:C:2008:380);










4.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9463 — KKR/Axel Springer) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 12/03
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, broadcasting, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, programmes industry, publishing








C_2020012EN.01000501.xml










14.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9463 — KKR/Axel Springer)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 12/03)
On 12 November 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 32019M9463. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 11 November 20192019/C 384/04
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019384EN.01000401.xml










12.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 November 2019
(2019/C 384/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1041 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,29 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4722 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85743 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7085 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0972 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0910 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,510 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2737 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7643 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3722 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6105 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4607 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6422 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7348 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5025 




KRW


South Korean won


1 288,00 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4150 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7404 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4391 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 540,68 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5749 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,138 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,5319 




THB


Thai baht


33,493 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5949 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1057 




INR


Indian rupee


78,9905 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9474 — Faurecia/Michelin/Symbio/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 5/01
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fuel cell, merger control, motor vehicle industry, pneumatic tyre, vehicle parts








C_2021005EN.01000101.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9474 — Faurecia/Michelin/Symbio/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 5/01)
On 12 November 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 32019M9474. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-824/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 November 2019 — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, lay magistrate, physically disabled person, worker with disabilities








C_2020027EN.01002402.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 November 2019 — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA
(Case C-824/19)
(2020/C 27/31)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants in the appeal in cassation: TC, UB

Respondents in the appeal in cassation: Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

Questions referred







1.


Does the interpretation of Article 5(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and of Article [2](1), (2) and (3) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation lead to the conclusion that it is permissible for a person without the ability to see to be able to work as a court assessor and participate in criminal proceedings, or:










2.


Is the specific disability of a permanently blind person a characteristic which constitutes a genuine and determining requirement of the activity of a court assessor, the existence of which justifies a difference of treatment and does not constitute discrimination based on the characteristic of ‘disability’?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case C-363/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Provision of food information to consumers — Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of a foodstuff where failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer — Requirement that foodstuffs originating in territories occupied by the State of Israel bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance)
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Israel, West Bank question, consumer information, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, originating product, product designation








C_2020010EN.01001301.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/13






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
(Case C-363/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of a foodstuff where failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer - Requirement that foodstuffs originating in territories occupied by the State of Israel bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance)
(2020/C 10/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, read in conjunction with Article 26(2)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that foodstuffs originating in a territory occupied by the State of Israel must bear not only the indication of that territory but also, where those foodstuffs come from a locality or a group of localities constituting an Israeli settlement within that territory, the indication of that provenance.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case C-828/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 12 November 2019 — SC Panavitrans SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, environmental tax, fiscal policy, limitation of legal proceedings, tax rebate








C_2020201EN.01000301.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 12 November 2019 — SC Panavitrans SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-828/19)
(2020/C 201/04)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Panavitrans SRL

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of refunding a tax found to be contrary to Community law, lays down a shorter limitation period than the general limitation period laid down in national law as regards tax claims?
Case T-777/19: Action brought on 12 November 2019 — CAPA and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, renewable energy








C_2020027EN.01006101.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/61






Action brought on 12 November 2019 — CAPA and Others v Commission
(Case T-777/19)
(2020/C 27/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Coopérative des artisans pêcheurs associés (CAPA) (Le Tréport, France) and 10 other applicants (represented by: M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well founded;




and, consequently:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2019)5498 final of 26 July 2019;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the parties’ procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU, in that the circumstances in which the contested decision was adopted and the content thereof demonstrate that the Commission was objectively faced with doubts that should have resulted in the formal investigation procedure being opened.










2.


Second plea in law, based on infringement of the obligation to state reasons.