do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-49/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik (Bulgaria), lodged on 29 January 2020 — SF v Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic money, legal person, money laundering, national law, natural person, paper money, payment, terrorism financing








C_2020137EN.01003701.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/37






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik (Bulgaria), lodged on 29 January 2020 — SF v Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv

(Case C-49/20)
(2020/C 137/50)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring Court

Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SF

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv

Questions referred

First question:
Must Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, (1) read in conjunction with recital 6 and Articles 4 and 5 thereof, be interpreted as precluding a general national legislative provision such as that in question in the main proceedings, under which domestic payments of BGN 10 000 or more are only to be made by transfer or deposit into a payment account and which, in the case of cash payments, disregards the person or the reason for making a cash payment, but rather applies to all cash payments between natural and legal persons?
Second question:
For the purposes of achieving the objective of the directive, in the light of recital 59 thereof, is solely the amount of the payment relevant, without it being dependant on whether the transaction is for consideration or not.
Third question:
Which criteria determine whether the transactions are open to abuse or are high-risk?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73).
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 28 January 20202020/C 30/06
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020030EN.01000801.xml










29.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 January 2020
(2020/C 30/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1005 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,02 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4728 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84603 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5993 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0703 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0758 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,221 




HUF


Hungarian forint


337,18 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2731 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7784 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5475 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6290 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4516 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5578 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6844 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4949 




KRW


South Korean won


1 297,20 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1249 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6338 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4410 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 008,07 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4972 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,878 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,9032 




THB


Thai baht


33,945 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6196 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7316 




INR


Indian rupee


78,4545 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-51/20: Action brought on 29 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, capital increase, control of State aid, credit guarantee, mining extraction, reimbursement of aid








C_2020087EN.01001801.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/18






Action brought on 29 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-51/20)
(2020/C 87/22)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 9 November 2017 in Case C-481/16 Commission v Greece EU:C:2017:845, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that judgment and under Article 260(1) TFEU,










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 26 697,89 for each day’s delay in complying with the judgment of the Court of 9 November 2017 in Case C-481/16, for the period from the day on which judgment in the present case is delivered until the day on which the judgment of 9 November 2017 has been complied with in full,










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which results from the multiplication of a daily amount of EUR 3 709,23 by the number of days elapsed from delivery of the judgment of 9 November 2017 until the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case,










—


order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the European Commission’s decision of 27 March 2014 in Case SA.34572, the Hellenic Republic should have recovered the incompatible aid granted to Larco within four months and informed the Commission to the requisite legal standard that it had taken the necessary measures to that end. The aid consisted of State guarantees to Larco for 2008, 2010 and 2011 and public participation in the company’s capital increase in 2009.
On 2 September 2016, the Commission brought an action before the Court for infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU (Case C-481/16). The Court ruled, on 9 November 2017, that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to implement the Commission’s decision and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures adopted pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 to 5 of that decision and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
By failing to take measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 9 November 2017, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Case T-388/18: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection of request — Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations — Out of time — Excusable error — Inadmissible)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Israel, Türkiye, access to EU information, legal aid, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020103EN.01002902.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/29






Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS
(Case T-388/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection of request - Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations - Out of time - Excusable error - Inadmissible)
(2020/C 103/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: WV (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of an implied decision of the EEAS, alleged to have been made on 4 September 2017, rejecting the request for assistance lodged by the applicant and, second, the EEAS’ decision of 28 March 2018 dismissing the applicant’s complaint of 29 November 2017 against the implied rejection.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


WV is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Case T-43/19: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS (Action for compensation — Civil service — Civil servants — Out of time — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, data protection, limitation of legal proceedings, personal data








C_2020103EN.01003101.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/31






Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS
(Case T-43/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Civil service - Civil servants - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 103/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: WV (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the EEAS’s decision of 28 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for compensation and, in so far as necessary, the EEAS’s decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2018; and second, compensation in respect of the harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the EEAS’s conduct towards her.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


WV is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Case C-50/20 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2020 by ZW against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2019 in Case T-727/18, ZW v EIB
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European civil service, admissibility








C_2020348EN.01000201.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/2






Appeal brought on 29 January 2020 by ZW against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2019 in Case T-727/18, ZW v EIB
(Case C-50/20 P)
(2020/C 348/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ZW (represented by: T. Petsas, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB)
By order of 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-45/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2020 — E v Finanzamt N
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, purchase, tax law, tax relief, tax return








C_2020191EN.01000402.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2020 — E v Finanzamt N
(Case C-45/20)
(2020/C 191/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E

Defendant: Finanzamt N

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 168(a), read in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) conflict with national case-law precluding the right to deduct VAT in cases in which the trader is entitled to choose the allocation of a supply at the time of purchase if the tax authorities have not adopted a decision on its allocation on expiry of the statutory deadline for submission of the annual VAT return?










2.


Does Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax conflict with national case-law whereby allocation to private assets is assumed or presumed in the absence of (sufficient) evidence for allocation to the assets of the business?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9698 — Platinum Equity Group/Biscuit International) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 46/03
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, pastry-making, provision of services








C_2020046EN.01000301.xml










11.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9698 — Platinum Equity Group/Biscuit International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 46/03)
On 29 January 2020, 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 32020M9698. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-50/20: Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Latvia, access to information, bank, banking supervision, board of directors, financial supervision, rights of the defence








C_2020114EN.01001101.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/11






Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
(Case T-50/20)
(2020/C 114/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to comply with the request to instruct the administrator of PNB Banka to grant access to the bank, its information, staff and resources;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested instruction is outside its competences.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an effective remedy.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the bank’s right to be heard.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle because the appointment of the administrator and the interference with the representation of the Bank by its Board as its lawful representative is due to wrongful conduct by the ECB.
Case T-541/19: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Shindler and Others v Council (Action for failure to act — Law governing the institutions — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — 2019 European elections — Application for postponement of the European elections — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European citizenship, European election, United Kingdom, admissibility, equal treatment, freedom of movement, principle of legal certainty, right of action, right to vote, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020095EN.01003201.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/32






Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Shindler and Others v Council
(Case T-541/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Law governing the institutions - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - UK citizens residing in another EU Member State - 2019 European elections - Application for postponement of the European elections - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 95/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d'Ascoli, Italy) and the five other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Council acted unlawfully by failing to adopt a decision postponing the 2019 European elections with a view to allowing the applicants to play a part in the ballot.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mr Harry Shindler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case T-697/18: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO — Titlbach (ALTISPORT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ALTISPORT — Earlier international and EU word marks ALDI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Comparison of the goods and services — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, sports equipment, textile product, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2020077EN.01004501.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/45






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO — Titlbach (ALTISPORT)
(Case T-697/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ALTISPORT - Earlier international and EU word marks ALDI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Comparison of the goods and services - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 77/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and A. Söder, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aleš Titlbach (Meziboří, Czech Republic)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2018 (Case R 2683/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi and Mr Titlbach.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 September 2018 (Case R 2683/2017-4) in so far as it concerns ‘toys’ in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders the parties to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-42/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (CROSS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark CROSS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1)of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, maintenance, provision of services, registered trade mark, retail trade, toy industry, trade-mark law, vehicle, wholesale trade








C_2020077EN.01004601.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/46






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (CROSS)
(Case T-42/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark CROSS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1)of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 77/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider, S. Hanne and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 (Case R 2500/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign CROSS as an EU trade mark,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case T-808/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Silgan International and Silgan Closures v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Request for information — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, access to EU information, cartel, competition policy, metal product, packaging product, principle of subsidiarity, right to justice, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2020095EN.01003302.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/33






Order of the President of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Silgan International and Silgan Closures v Commission
(Case T-808/19 R)
(Interim measures - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
(2020/C 95/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Silgan International Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Silgan Closures GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, H. Wollmann, R. Grafunder, B. Meyrind and E. Venot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, L. Wildpanner, A. Keidel and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 8501 final of 20 November 2019 relating to proceedings under Article 18(3) and Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40522 — Metal packaging).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.