do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-717/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 2(2) — Execution of a European arrest warrant — Removal of verification of the double criminality of the act — Conditions — Offence punishable by the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years — Amendment of the criminal legislation of the issuing Member State between the date of the acts and the date of issue of the European arrest warrant — Version of the law to be taken into account in verifying the maximum sentence threshold of at least three years)
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, amendment of a law, enforcement of ruling, imprisonment, offence, penal code








C_2020137EN.01001801.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/18






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against X
(Case C-717/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 2(2) - Execution of a European arrest warrant - Removal of verification of the double criminality of the act - Conditions - Offence punishable by the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years - Amendment of the criminal legislation of the issuing Member State between the date of the acts and the date of issue of the European arrest warrant - Version of the law to be taken into account in verifying the maximum sentence threshold of at least three years)
(2020/C 137/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

X

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) 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, in order to ascertain whether the offence for which a European arrest warrant has been issued is punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as it is defined in the law of the issuing Member State, the executing judicial authority must take into account the law of the issuing Member State in the version applicable to the facts giving rise to the case in which the European arrest warrant was issued.


(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case C-117/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 3 March 2020 — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, administrative procedure, administrative sanction, general legal principle, infringement of EU law, postal service








C_2020161EN.01004101.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/41






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 3 March 2020 — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence
(Case C-117/20)
(2020/C 161/54)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence

Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission

Questions referred







1.


Must the principle non bis in idem, as guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter, be interpreted as not precluding the competent administrative authority of a Member State from imposing a fine for infringing EU competition law, in a situation such as that of the present case, where the same legal person has already been finally acquitted of an offence for which an administrative fine had been imposed on it by the national postal regulator for an alleged infringement of postal legislation, on the basis of the same or similar facts, in so far as the criterion that the legal interest protected must be the same is not satisfied because the case at issue relates to two different infringements of different legislation applicable in two separate fields of law?










2.


Must the principle non bis in idem, as guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter, be interpreted as not precluding the competent administrative authority of a Member State from imposing a fine for infringing EU competition law, in a situation such as that of the present case, where the same legal person has already been finally acquitted of an offence for which an administrative fine had been imposed on it by the national postal regulator for an alleged infringement of postal legislation, on the basis of the same or similar facts, on the grounds that a limitation of the principle non bis in idem is justified by the fact that competition legislation pursues a complementary general interest objective, that is to say, protecting and maintaining a system of undistorted competition within the internal market, and does not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective that such legislation legitimately pursues, and/or in order to protect the right and freedom to conduct business of those other operators under Article 16 of the Charter?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 3 March 2020 in the case of Abdulkerim Kerim v The Norwegian Government (Case E-1/20) 2020/C 218/08
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, foreign national, marriage, misuse of a right, residence permit








C_2020218EN.01001301.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/13






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 3 March 2020 in the case of Abdulkerim Kerim v The Norwegian Government
(Case E-1/20)
(2020/C 218/08)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 3 March 2020 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 3 March 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Abdulkerim Kerim v The Norwegian Government on the following questions:
Which criteria should be the basis for determining whether one is faced with a marriage of convenience covered by the abuse rule in Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC? It would be useful if the EFTA Court could especially comment on the following:






a)


Does the EEA citizen’s subjective intention for entering into the marriage have any significance for the determination of whether one is faced with a marriage of convenience?










b)


If the third country national’s intention is the key factor for determining whether one is faced with a marriage of convenience within the meaning of the Directive, is it a requirement that the third country national’s wish for a right of residence was the sole purpose for entering into the marriage, or is it sufficient that it was the main purpose for entering into the marriage?
Case C-120/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 March 2020 — Koleje Mazowieckie — KM sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa, now Minister Infrastruktury, and Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego, and PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, damages, discretionary power, judicial review, national implementing measure, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2020209EN.01000901.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 March 2020 — Koleje Mazowieckie — KM sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa, now Minister Infrastruktury, and Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego, and PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.
(Case C-120/20)
(2020/C 209/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Koleje Mazowieckie — KM sp. z o.o.

Respondents: Skarb Państwa — Minister Infrastruktury i Budownictwa, now Minister Infrastruktury, and Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego, and PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, (1) and in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30(1), (3), (5) and (6) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding a railway undertaking from claiming, with no judicial review of the decision of a supervisory body, damages against a Member State on grounds of incorrect implementation of a directive in a situation where an element of the damages is an overpaid charge for the use of railway infrastructure?










2.


Does the assumption that a right to damages under Community law for misapplication of EU law, and in particular the incorrect implementation or non-implementation of a directive, exists only where the rule of law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the infringement of the law is qualified in nature (in particular in the form of manifest and grave disregard of a Member State’s discretion in implementing a directive), and the causal link between the infringement and the damage is direct in nature, preclude rules of law of a Member State which, in such cases, confer a right to damages where less stringent conditions are satisfied?






(1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).
Case C-75/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Tax on the turnover of telecommunications operators — Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings — Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons — Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation — Ability to pay of taxable persons — State aid — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Turnover taxes — Meaning)
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, VAT, control of State aid, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, mobile communication, right of establishment, taxpayer, turnover








C_2020137EN.01000401.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-75/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax on the turnover of telecommunications operators - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Turnover taxes - Meaning)
(2020/C 137/04)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned.










2.


Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the introduction of a tax which is based on the overall turnover of the taxable person and which is levied periodically, and not at each stage of the production and distribution process, there being no right to deduct tax paid at an earlier stage of that process.






(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 March 2020 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 March 2020 2020/C 69/04
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020069EN.01000701.xml










3.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/7






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 March 2020
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 March 2020
(2020/C 69/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1122 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,82 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4730 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87113 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6063 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0655 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4043 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,525 




HUF


Hungarian forint


336,92 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3276 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8106 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,9253 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6998 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4857 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6525 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7738 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5449 




KRW


South Korean won


1 325,85 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4202 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7469 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4835 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 909,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6751 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,511 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,5600 




THB


Thai baht


34,968 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,9938 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9963 




INR


Indian rupee


80,9170 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-118/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 March 2020 — JY
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European citizenship, appeal, nationality, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_2020209EN.01000801.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 March 2020 — JY
(Case C-118/20)
(2020/C 209/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JY

Defendant: Wiener Landesregierung

Questions referred







1.


Does the situation of a natural person who, like the appellant in cassation in the main proceedings, has renounced her only nationality of a Member State of the European Union, and thus her citizenship of the Union, in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State, having been given a guarantee by the other Member State of grant of the nationality applied for, and whose possibility of recovering citizenship of the Union is subsequently eliminated by revocation of that guarantee, fall, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law, such that regard must be had to EU law when revoking the guarantee of grant of citizenship?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative,










2.


Is it for the competent national authorities, including any national courts, involved in the decision to revoke the guarantee of grant of nationality of the Member States, to establish whether the revocation of the guarantee that prevented the recovery of citizenship of the Union is compatible with the principle of proportionality from the point of view of EU law in terms of its consequences for the situation of the person concerned?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9647 — GHT Mobility/Stadtwerke Düsseldorf/CleverShuttle Düsseldorf) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 82/01
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, economic concentration, energy distribution, heating, land transport, merger control, provision of services, urban infrastructure, vehicle rental, waste management








C_2020082EN.01000101.xml










12.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9647 — GHT Mobility/Stadtwerke Düsseldorf/CleverShuttle Düsseldorf)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 82/01)
On 3 March 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 32020M9647. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-323/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Turnover tax in the store retail trade sector — Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings — Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons — Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation — Ability to pay of taxable persons — State aid)
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, VAT, control of State aid, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, retail trade, right of establishment, taxpayer, turnover








C_2020137EN.01000701.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-323/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Turnover tax in the store retail trade sector - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid)
(2020/C 137/08)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a steeply progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned


(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Case C-685/19: Order of the President of the Court of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankenthal — Germany) — OK v Daimler AG
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approval, commercial vehicle, engine, market approval, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, new technology, reduction of gas emissions, technical specification, vehicle parts








C_2020320EN.01002003.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/20






Order of the President of the Court of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankenthal — Germany) — OK v Daimler AG
(Case C-685/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/40)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case T-24/20 R: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 3 March 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament (Interim measures — Institutional law — Members of the Parliament — Expiry of mandate — Parliamentary immunity — Application for interim measures — Partial inadmissibility — No prima facie case)
Date: 2020-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, European election, Member of the European Parliament, charge, parliamentary immunity, parliamentary rules of procedure, public prosecution








C_2020137EN.01005201.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/52






Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 3 March 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament
(Case T-24/20 R)
(Interim measures - Institutional law - Members of the Parliament - Expiry of mandate - Parliamentary immunity - Application for interim measures - Partial inadmissibility - No prima facie case)
(2020/C 137/82)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by A. Van den Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by N. Lorenz and C. Burgos, agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, inter alia, suspension of enforcement of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020, declaring the seat of the applicant to be vacant as from 3 January 2020 and rejecting the application submitted on 20 December 2019 for urgent measures to protect his parliamentary immunity.

Operative part







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.