do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-851/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, pension scheme








C_2020068EN.01003001.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/30






Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS
(Case C-851/19 P)
(2020/C 68/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18);










—


annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant;










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant asks the Court to set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 (T-217/18), in which the General Court dismissed his action for annulment and ordered him to pay the costs.
In that regard, the appellant raises a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law (paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal), in so far as the General Court interpreted Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations as allowing damage in respect of which compensation has already been paid to be taken into account in order to justify imposing a stricter disciplinary measure on a civil servant as compared to the measure recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9568 — Marcegaglia Plates/Evraz Palini Bertoli) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 400/01
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plate, sheet, steel








C_2019400EN.01000101.xml










26.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9568 — Marcegaglia Plates/Evraz Palini Bertoli)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 400/01)
On 19 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 32019M9568. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia2019/C 392/04
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Tunisia, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2019392EN.01000401.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/4






Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia
(2019/C 392/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 (2), concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia.
The Council intends to renew the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/72/CFSP. The Council holds on its file new elements concerning all persons listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP and in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.The persons concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the information that relates to them, before 25 November 2019, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 5 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.


(1)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62.

(2)  OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2019/1870 of 7 November 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of erucic acid and hydrocyanic acid in certain foodstuffs (Official Journal of the European Union L 289 of 8 November 2019)
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: condiment, food contamination, food inspection, food safety, food standard, foodstuff, marketing standard, organic acid, stone fruit, vegetable fats




L_2019298EN.01001201.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 298/12







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2019/1870 of 7 November 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of erucic acid and hydrocyanic acid in certain foodstuffs

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 289 of 8 November 2019
)


Annex I and II are replaced by the following:



“ANNEX I
In section 8 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, entry 8.1 is replaced by the following:







Foodstuffs(1)


Maximum level (g/kg)




“8.1



Erucic acid, including erucic acid bound in fat



 




8.1.1


Vegetable oils and fats placed on the market for the final consumer or for use as an ingredient in food, with the exception of camelina oil, mustard oil and borage oil


20,0




8.1.2.


Camelina oil, mustard oil (*1) and borage oil


50,0




8.1.3.


Mustard (condiment)


35,0








ANNEX II
In section 8 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, entry 8.3 is replaced by the following:







Foodstuffs(1)


Maximum level (mg/kg)




“8.3



Hydrocyanic acid, including hydrocyanic acid bound in cyanogenic glycosides



 




8.3.1


Unprocessed whole, ground, milled, cracked, chopped apricot kernels placed on the market for the final consumer (54)
 (55)



20,0






                  “
               


(*1)  With acceptance from the competent authority, the maximum level does not apply to mustard oil locally produced and consumed.“
         

(54)  
            ‘Unprocessed products’ as defined in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on they hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

(55)  
            ‘Placing on the market’ and ‘final consumer’ as defined in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1)”.’
Case C-842/19: Action brought on 19 November 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, free movement of capital, infringement procedure (EU), property leasing, sanction (EU)








C_2020045EN.01002601.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/26






Action brought on 19 November 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-842/19)
(2020/C 45/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Armenia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 12 April 2018 delivered in Case C-110/17, Commission v Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










—


impose on the Kingdom of Belgium a penalty payment of EUR 22 076.55 per day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date on which the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, has been complied with, payable to an account specified by the Commission;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay a minimum lump sum of EUR 2 029 000 or, in the event that the amount of that minimum lump sum is exceeded, of a daily lump sum of EUR 4 905.90 from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-110/17, referred to above, until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case or until the date of compliance with the judgment delivered in Case C-110/17, referred to above, whichever is the earlier, payable to an account specified by the Commission;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission criticises the Kingdom of Belgium for not having taken the measures necessary to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 12 April 2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global Reit) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 402/02
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019402EN.01000601.xml










28.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global Reit)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 402/02)
On 19 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 32019M9576. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-803/19: Action brought on 19 November 2019 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, game of chance, loss, preliminary ruling procedure, primacy of EU law, right to justice, tax law, turnover








C_2020045EN.01008001.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/80






Action brought on 19 November 2019 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission
(Case T-803/19)
(2020/C 45/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: etc-gaming GmbH (Vienna, Austria) and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: A. Schuster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to pay compensation for the losses suffered in the amount of EUR 110 836 927,73 which it unlawfully and through its own fault caused to the applicants’ assets by failing to provide, as required, a legal remedy within the meaning of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);










—


alternatively, order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, on the merits of the case, to pay compensation for the losses suffered, and/or which will arise in the future, which it unlawfully and through its own fault caused to the applicants’ assets by failing to provide, as required, a legal remedy within the meaning of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter;










—


order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following plea in law:
The failure of the European Union to give effect to the requirements under the ECHR and the Charter to provide an effective legal remedy unlawfully and improperly caused the applicants to suffer a loss of at least EUR 110 836 927,73. This loss consists of the fact that the applicants, in the absence of a legal remedy which would have made possible a review of the failure by the national courts, which were under a corresponding duty to do so, to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, were legally not in a position to ensure that effect would be given to EU law and thereby to ensure the inapplicability, as a result of the primacy of EU law, of the national tax provisions of the Law on games of chance resulting in obligations to pay tax corresponding to several times the amount of the turnover achieved during the same period.