do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-28/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 January 2020 — Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System SAS
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, pay rise, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020095EN.01002201.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 January 2020 — Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System SAS
(Case C-28/20)
(2020/C 95/26)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Attunda Tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Scandinavian Airlines System SAS

Questions referred







1.


Does a strike by airline pilots who are employed by an air carrier and who are needed to carry out a flight constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) when the strike is not implemented in connection with a measure decided upon or announced by the air carrier but of which notice is given and which is lawfully initiated by workers’ organisations as industrial action intended to induce the air carrier to increase wages, provide benefits or amend employment conditions in order to meet the organisations’ demands?










2.


What significance, if any, is to be attached to the fairness of the workers’ organisations’ demands and, in particular, to the fact that the wage increase demanded is significantly higher than the wage increases which generally apply to the national labour markets in question?










3.


What significance, if any, is to be attached to the fact that the air carrier, in order to avoid a strike, accepts a proposal for settlement from a national body responsible for mediating labour disputes but the workers’ organisations do not?






(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).
Case T-162/19: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Internal market for electronic communications — Retail price charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications — Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 — Legislative act — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, admissibility, amendment of a law, cross-frontier data flow, regulation of telecommunications, retail price, telephone charges, trans-European network








C_2020077EN.01005201.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/52






Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council
(Case T-162/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market for electronic communications - Retail price charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications - Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 - Legislative act - Applicants not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 77/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Telefónica de España, SAU (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, M. Peternel and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission.











3.



Telefónica, SA and Telefónica de España, SAU shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.











4.



Telefónica, Telefónica de España, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case C-613/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa — Portugal) — State of Canada v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictions on the free movement of capital to or from a third country — Direct taxation — Tax on the revenue of legal persons — Profits distributed by companies resident in the territory of Portugal — Reduction in the tax base)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Canada, Portugal, corporation tax, establishment, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, nationality of legal persons, tax relief








C_2020077EN.01000802.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/8






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa — Portugal) — State of Canada v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-613/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Restrictions on the free movement of capital to or from a third country - Direct taxation - Tax on the revenue of legal persons - Profits distributed by companies resident in the territory of Portugal - Reduction in the tax base)
(2020/C 77/11)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: State of Canada

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax the effective rate of which is higher where those dividends are received by an entity resident in a third country which does not principally carry out activities of a commercial, industrial or agricultural nature than where such dividends are received by such an entity resident in that State. The situation is different only if the application of the tax convention signed on 14 June 1999 for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income allows the effects of the difference in treatment under the legislation of that Member State to be completely neutralised, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Case C-813/19 PPU: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence — France) — execution of a European arrest warrant in respect of MN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, France, executive power, independence of the judiciary, judicial power, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2020077EN.01001001.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/10






Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence — France) — execution of a European arrest warrant in respect of MN
(Case C-813/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 77/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings

MN

In the presence of: RJA, RJO, FD, BG, PG, KL, LK, MJ, NI, OH

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’, for the purposes of that provision, covers French prosecutors, managed and supervised by their hierarchical superiors and under the authority of the Minister of Justice in accordance with the statutory rules and institutional framework to which they are subject, since their statute grants them a guarantee of independence, in particular vis-à-vis the executive, in the context of the issue of a European arrest warrant.
Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection to be provided to a person against whom a European arrest warrant is issued with a view to criminal prosecution are satisfied where, in accordance with the legislation of the issuing Member State, the conditions for the issue of that warrant and, in particular, the proportionality thereof are subject to judicial review in that ember State.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Case C-274/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central — Spain) — Proceedings brought by Banco de Santander SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ — Criteria — Independence of the national body concerned — Irremovability of the members — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: acquisition of property, amortisation, bank, courts and tribunals, foreign enterprise, goodwill, independence of the judiciary, shareholding








C_2020077EN.01000201.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/2






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central — Spain) — Proceedings brought by Banco de Santander SA
(Case C-274/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Criteria - Independence of the national body concerned - Irremovability of the members - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(2020/C 77/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central

Party to the main proceedings

Banco de Santander SA

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (Central Tax Tribunal, Spain), made by decision of 2 April 2014, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9641 — SNAM/FSI/OLT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 20/06
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, gas supply, investment company, merger control, storage of hydrocarbons








C_2020020EN.01003401.xml










21.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 20/34






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9641 — SNAM/FSI/OLT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 20/06)

1.   
On 7 January 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. (1)

This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


SNAM S.p.A. (ITALY),










—


First State Investments International Ltd (UNITED KINGDOM),










—


OLT Offshore LNG Toscana S.p.A. (ITALY).




SNAM and FSI acquire joint control, in the meaning of Article 3(1) and 3(4) of the EUMR, over OLT.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for SNAM: the development and integrated management of gas infrastructures and, in particular, the transmission, regasification and storage of natural gas in Italy as well as in other European Union countries;










—


for FSI: asset management division of Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation, which is one of Japan’s largest asset managers and a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.;










—


for OLT: the management of a floating storage and regasification unit for liquified natural gas in Italy, provision of regasification capacity to all interested market participants under transparent and non-discriminatory conditions.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9641 – SNAM/FSI/OLT
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29 January 2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/540 of 21 January 2020 correcting the Polish language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/208 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle functional safety requirements for the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: Community certification, agricultural vehicle, market supervision, safety standard, technical specification, testing, tractor, transport safety, vehicle parts








L_2020121EN.01000101.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 121/1








            COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2020/540
of 21 January 2020
         
correcting the Polish language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/208 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle functional safety requirements for the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles (1), in particular Article 17(5) and Article 49(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Polish language version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/208 (2), contains an error in the second paragraph of point 6.19.7.1 of Annex XII as regards the situations where the daytime running lamps are to switch off automatically, thus affecting the scope of the obligations of the addressees of the erroneous provision.












(2)


The Polish language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/208 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(does not concern the English language)



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 January 2020.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/208 of 8 December 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle functional safety requirements for the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles (OJ L 42, 17.2.2015, p. 1).
Case T-606/19: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01006202.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/62






Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)
(Case T-606/19) (1)

(2020/C 77/85)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Case T-161/19: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Internal market for electronic communications — Retail price charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications — Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 — Legislative act — Applicant not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, consumer price, regulation of telecommunications, retail price, single market, telephone charges








C_2020077EN.01005101.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/51






Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council
(Case T-161/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market for electronic communications - Retail price charged to consumers for regulated intra-EU communications - Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 - Legislative act - Applicant not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 77/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, M. Peternel and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission.











3.



Deutsche Telekom AG shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.











4.



Deutsche Telekom, the Parliament, the Council, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 20 January 20202020/C 20/03
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020020EN.01001601.xml










21.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 20/16






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 January 2020
(2020/C 20/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1085 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,14 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4726 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85275 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5548 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0737 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8815 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,125 




HUF


Hungarian forint


336,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2433 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7794 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5604 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6154 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4487 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6112 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6796 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4943 




KRW


South Korean won


1 286,08 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1045 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6112 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4358 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 118,30 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5022 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,489 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,2075 




THB


Thai baht


33,647 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6360 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6940 




INR


Indian rupee


78,7840 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-27/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 21 January 2020 — PF and QG v Caisse d’allocations familiales d’Ille-et-Vilaine (CAF)
Date: 2020-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, income, residence, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation








C_2020095EN.01002101.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 21 January 2020 — PF and QG v Caisse d’allocations familiales d’Ille-et-Vilaine (CAF)
(Case C-27/20)
(2020/C 95/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PF and QG

Defendant: Caisse d’allocations familiales d’Ille-et-Vilaine (CAF)

Question referred

Is EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 (1) and Article 7 of Regulation No 492/2011, (2) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation, such as Article R 532-3 of the code de la sécurité sociale (French Social Security Code), which defines the reference calendar year, for the purposes of calculating family allowances, as the year before that preceding the payment period, and results, in a situation where the income of the person claiming the allowance has risen substantially in another Member State, and then fallen [following] his or her return to his or her Member State of origin, in that person being deprived, unlike residents who have not exercised their right of free movement, of part of his or her family allowance rights?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).