do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-867/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, equal treatment, indemnification, pay scale, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU), use of languages








C_2020068EN.01004601.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/46






Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors
(Case T-867/19)
(2020/C 68/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RA (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 27 February 2019 taken to comply with the judgment of 8 November 2018, RA v Court of Auditors (T-874/16, not published, EU:T:2018:757) not to promote him to grade AD11 during the 2016 promotion exercise;










—


order the Court of Auditors to pay him a sum of EUR 8 000 for the non-material damage suffered;










—


order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that there was inadequate reasoning given in the response dismissing the complaint in that the relevant individual ground justifying the applicant not being promoted was not identified.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which vitiate the contested decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment within a reasonable period, which caused significant non-material damage to the applicant, which should be remedied.
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts




C_2019430EN.01001601.xml










20.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/16






Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2
(2019/C 430/04)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2019


Amending budget No 2


New amount





1




EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY





1 0


EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY


11 070 000 


 


11 070 000 




 



Title 1 — Total




11 070 000 



 



11 070 000 






2




PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES





2 0


PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY


150 130 


 


150 130 




 



Title 2 — Total




150 130 



 



150 130 





 



GRAND TOTAL




11 220 130 



 



11 220 130 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2019


Amending budget No 2


New amount





1




STAFF EXPENDITURE





1 1


REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES


6 705 218 


– 240 000 


6 465 218 




1 2


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE


303 100 


69 500 


372 600 




 



Title 1 — Total




7 008 318 




– 170 500 




6 837 818 






2




INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 1


BUILDING EXPENDITURE


1 040 300 


 


1 040 300 




2 2


ICT


225 000 


 


225 000 




2 3


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE


131 500 


30 500 


162 000 




 



Title 2 — Total




1 396 800 




30 500 




1 427 300 






3




PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE





3 1


PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE


2 815 012 


140 000 


2 955 012 




 



Title 3 — Total




2 815 012 




140 000 




2 955 012 





 



GRAND TOTAL




11 220 130 



 



11 220 130 






Establishment plan










Function group and grade


Permanent posts


Temporary posts




2019


2018


2019


2018






AD 16


—


—


—


—




AD 15


—


—


—


—




AD 14


__


—


2 


1 




AD 13


—


—


1 


1 




AD 12


—


—


2 


4 




AD 11


—


—


0 


1 




AD 10


—


—


1 


—




AD 9


—


—


2 


1 




AD 8


—


—


1 


—




AD 7


—


—


2 


3 




AD 6


—


—


2 


2 




AD 5


—


—


5 


3 




Subtotal A


—


—


18 


16 






AST 11


—


—


—


—




AST 10


—


—


—


—




AST 9


—


—


—


—




AST 8


—


—


1 


1 




AST 7


—


—


—


—




AST 6


—


—


—


—




AST 5


—


—


1 


1 




AST 4


—


—


—


—




AST 3


—


—


—


—




AST 2


—


—


—


—




AST 1


—


—


—


—




Subtotal AST


—


—


2 


2 







Total




—




—




20 




18
Case C-932/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 20 December 2019 — J.Z. v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt. and Others
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, exchange rate, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2020161EN.01002201.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 20 December 2019 — J.Z. v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt. and Others
(Case C-932/19)
(2020/C 161/29)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J.Z.

Defendants: OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt., OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

Question referred

Does Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude a rule of national law which, in loan agreements concluded with consumers, states that terms — with the exception of contractual terms which have been individually negotiated — pursuant to which the financial institution stipulates that, for the purpose of paying out the amount of finance granted for the purchase of the subject of the loan or financial leasing, the buying rate is to apply, and that, for the purpose of repayment of the debt, the selling rate, or a different exchange rate from that set when the loan was paid out, is to apply, are to be void, and replaces the void terms with a provision which, in the case of both disbursement and repayment, applies the official exchange rate set by the National Bank of Hungary for the currency in question, without considering whether — in the light of all of the terms in the contract — that provision actually protects the consumer against particularly unfavourable consequences, and also without giving the consumer the opportunity to express a view as to whether he wishes to avail himself of the protection afforded by that legislative provision?


(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 288 — 293.
Corrigendum to Decision (EU) 2019/2158 of the European Central Bank of 5 December 2019 on the methodology and procedures for the determination and collection of data regarding fee factors used to calculate annual supervisory fees (ECB/2019/38) (Official Journal of the European Union L 327 of 17 December 2019)
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, data collection, exchange of information, financial institution, financial legislation, financial supervision








L_2019330EN.01010501.xml










20.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 330/105







Corrigendum to Decision (EU) 2019/2158 of the European Central Bank of 5 December 2019 on the methodology and procedures for the determination and collection of data regarding fee factors used to calculate annual supervisory fees (ECB/2019/38)

(Official Journal of the European Union L 327 of 17 December 2019)


On page 104, Article 11:
for:


                  ‘This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’,

read:


                  ‘This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2020.’
Case C-931/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 20 December 2019 — Titanium Ltd
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, establishment, property leasing








C_2020087EN.01001001.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 20 December 2019 — Titanium Ltd
(Case C-931/19)
(2020/C 87/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Titanium Ltd

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Wien 1/23

Question referred (1)

Is the term ‘fixed establishment’ to be interpreted as meaning that the existence of human and technical resources is always necessary and therefore that the service provider’s own staff must be present at the establishment, or can — in the specific case of the letting, subject to tax, of a property situated in national territory, which constitutes only a passive tolerance of an act or situation — that property, even without human resources, be regarded as a ‘fixed establishment’?


(1)  On the interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 11), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112 (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Switzerland, agreement (EU), emission allowance, emission trading, environmental cooperation, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








L_2019330EN.01000101.xml










20.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 330/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems

The Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems (1) enters into force on 1 January 2020, the procedure provided for in Article 21(4) of the Agreement having been completed on 6 December 2019.


(1)  
            OJ L 322, 7.12.2017, p. 3
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9582 – Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy/Senvion (European onshore wind turbine service)/Ria Blades) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 221/02
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, power plant, turbine, wind energy








C_2020221EN.01000201.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9582 – Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy/Senvion (European onshore wind turbine service)/Ria Blades)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 221/02)
On 20 December 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 32019M9582. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-930/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2019 — X v Belgian State
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, domestic violence, equal treatment, family, family migration, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, income, residence permit, stateless person








C_2020077EN.01003001.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2019 — X v Belgian State
(Case C-930/19)
(2020/C 77/41)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

Does Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) infringe Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it provides that divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of a registered partnership does not entail loss of the right of residence of a Union citizen’s family members who are not nationals of a Member State where, inter alia, this is warranted by particularly difficult circumstances, such as having been a victim of domestic violence while the marriage or registered partnership was subsisting, but only on the condition that the persons concerned show that they are workers or self-employed persons or that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State, or that they are members of the family, already constituted in the host Member State, of a person satisfying these requirements, whereas Article 15(3) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (2) which makes the same provision for the right of residence to continue, does not make its continuation subject to that condition?


(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

(2)  OJ 2003, L 251, p. 12.