do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-151/20: Action brought on 16 March 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Laos, customs duties, import (EU), originating product, own resources, payment, smoking








C_2020175EN.01003201.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/32






Action brought on 16 March 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-151/20)
(2020/C 175/42)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 40 482 255 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 17 March 2015 for no legal reason;










—


order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 2 698 817 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 22 December 2016 for no legal reason;










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
The applicant claims that the amount in dispute corresponds to unrecovered customs duty on the import of flint lighters from Laos amounting to CZK 53 976 340 minus collection costs. On 17 March 2015, the sum of CZK 40 482 255 (75 % of the unrecovered customs duty) was conditionally paid into the Commission’s account, following the Commission’s formal notice dated 21 January 2015. On 22 December 2016, the sum of CZK 2 698 817 (5 % of the unrecovered customs duty) was paid into the Commission’s account, following the Commission’s request for payment of the difference corresponding to the increase in the contribution paid to the Union to 80 %.
There was no legal reason for the payment of that sum into the Commission’s account, since the customs duty concerned could not be collected for reasons which cannot be attributed to the Czech Republic. Under Article 17(2)(b) of Regulation No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (1) the Czech Republic was therefore released from the obligation to place the disputed sum at the Commission’s disposal.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
Appointment of a Hearing Officer 2020/C 86/05
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, European official, appointment of members








C_2020086EN.01000501.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/5






Appointment of a Hearing Officer
(2020/C 86/05)
Following the retirement of Mr Joos STRAGIER, the Commission has appointed Ms Dorothe DALHEIMER to the post of Hearing Officer with effect as from 16 March 2020, in accordance with Article 1 of the Decision of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).
Case C-139/20: Action brought on 16 March 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, energy consumption, environmental tax, excise duty, infringement of EU law, national law, tax exemption, tax law, tradeable emission permit








C_2020201EN.01001701.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/17






Action brought on 16 March 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-139/20)
(2020/C 201/25)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


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

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by implementing a law which grants an exemption from excise duty for energy products used by energy-intensive businesses covered by the EU Emissions Trading System, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1)(b) and Article 17(4) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity; (1)











—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland has introduced into its national legislation an exemption from excise duty for energy products used by energy-intensive businesses covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (‘the EU ETS’).
In the Commission’s view, this constitutes a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 17(1)(b) and Article 17(4) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity. According to those provisions, exemption from or reduction of the level of taxation applied to energy products used by energy-intensive businesses is possible only where agreements are concluded with undertakings or associations of undertakings, or where tradable permit schemes or equivalent arrangements are implemented, as far as they lead to the achievement of environmental protection objectives or to improvements in energy efficiency. The EU ETS cannot, in the Commission’s view, be regarded as a ‘tradable permit [scheme]’ for the purposes of those provisions.


(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9663 – Vossloh Rail Services/Rhomberg Sersa Rail Holding/Vossloh Rail Maintenance (Railway Switches Repair and Maintenance)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 102/01
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2020102EN.01000101.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9663 – Vossloh Rail Services/Rhomberg Sersa Rail Holding/Vossloh Rail Maintenance (Railway Switches Repair and Maintenance))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 102/01)
On 16 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 German 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 32020M9663. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-148/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — AC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, data collection, data protection, data transmission, personal data, protection of privacy, third country, traveller








C_2020279EN.01002101.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — AC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-148/20)
(2020/C 279/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AC

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

Is Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in relation to the following points:






(1)


Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?










(2)


In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns?










(3)


Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?










(4)


Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data?










(5)


Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/431 of 16 March 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Cereja do Fundão’ (PGI)
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Central Portugal, Portugal, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, stone fruit








L_2020088EN.01000101.xml










24.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 88/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/431
of 16 March 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications

            ‘Cereja do Fundão’ (PGI)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal’s application to register the name ‘Cereja do Fundão’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cereja do Fundão’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Cereja do Fundão’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 16 March 2020.


For the Commission

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

On behalf of the President


Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 371, 4.11.2019, p. 19.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 March 2020 2020/C 86/04
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020086EN.01000401.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 March 2020
(2020/C 86/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1104 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,11 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4732 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89070 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8453 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0608 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,0966 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,042 




HUF


Hungarian forint


338,88 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3570 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8213 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,9850 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7684 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5389 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6255 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8120 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5684 




KRW


South Korean won


1 341,38 




ZAR


South African rand


17,9235 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7587 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5630 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 400,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7508 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,453 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,7385 




THB


Thai baht


35,244 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2042 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7835 




INR


Indian rupee


81,8765 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1685 of 4 October 2019 designating a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals (Official Journal of the European Union L 258 of 9 October 2019)
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, France, animal welfare, consortium, farm animal, poultry, research body, scientific cooperation








L_2020079EN.01001201.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 79/12







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1685 of 4 October 2019 designating a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 258 of 9 October 2019
)


On page 11, in recital 3, and on page 12, in Article 1(1):
for:


                  ‘Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation (France)’,

read:


                  ‘Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (France)’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9754 — KII/Infor) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 96/05
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, cloud computing, economic concentration, goods and services, merger control, pollution control measures, private sector, software, technology








C_2020096EN.01000501.xml










24.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9754 — KII/Infor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 96/05)
On 16 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 32020M9754. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-149/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — DF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, data collection, data protection, data transmission, personal data, protection of privacy, third country, traveller








C_2020279EN.01002102.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — DF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-149/20)
(2020/C 279/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DF

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

Is Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in relation to the following points:






(1)


Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?










(2)


In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns?










(3)


Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?










(4)


Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data?










(5)


Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).