do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
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 April 2020 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 April 2020 2020/C 110/03
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020110EN.01000301.xml










2.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/3






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

1 April 2020
(2020/C 110/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0936 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,55 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4642 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88460 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9368 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0564 




ISK


Iceland króna


156,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,2685 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,369 




HUF


Hungarian forint


369,36 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5815 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8340 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,2925 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,8053 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5601 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4781 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8547 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5689 




KRW


South Korean won


1 346,48 




ZAR


South African rand


19,6619 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7653 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6285 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


18 239,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7654 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,709 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,4750 




THB


Thai baht


36,111 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,7349 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,4097 




INR


Indian rupee


83,6004 






(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-830/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Children of frontier workers — Social advantages — System for reimbursement of school transport costs — Requirement of residence in a Land — Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended — Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, frontier worker, residence, school transport








C_2020230EN.01000802.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/8






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others
(Case C-830/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Children of frontier workers - Social advantages - System for reimbursement of school transport costs - Requirement of residence in a Land - Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended - Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder)
(2020/C 230/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße

Defendant: PF and Others

Other party to the proceedings: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 7(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the payment of school transport costs by a Land subject to a requirement of residence in the territory of that Land constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it is intrinsically liable to affect frontier workers more than national workers;










2.


Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that practical difficulties linked to the effective organisation of school transport within a Land do not constitute an overriding reason in the public interest that is capable of justifying a national measure categorised as indirect discrimination.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case C-765/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/55/EC — Common rules for the internal market in natural gas — Consumer protection — Article 3(3) and point (b) of Annex A — Transparency of contractual terms and conditions — Obligation to give consumers adequate notice directly of an increase in charges)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, fixing of prices, gas supply, indemnification, natural gas, price of energy, single market, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2020222EN.01001301.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/13






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI
(Case C-765/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/55/EC - Common rules for the internal market in natural gas - Consumer protection - Article 3(3) and point (b) of Annex A - Transparency of contractual terms and conditions - Obligation to give consumers adequate notice directly of an increase in charges)
(2020/C 222/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH

Defendant: RI

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that, where tariff changes which have not been personally notified to customers are implemented by a gas supplier of last resort with the sole aim of passing on the increase in the cost of acquisition of natural gas without any profit being sought, it is not a condition for the validity of the tariff changes in question that that supplier fulfil the obligations of transparency and information referred to in those provisions, provided that the customers are able to terminate the contract at any time and have the appropriate remedies available to obtain compensation for damage that may have been incurred as a result of the failure to notify the changes personally.


(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Case C-553/19 P: Order of the Court of (Ninth Chamber) 2 April 2020 — International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related products — Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products — Delegated Regulation and implementing acts — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Lack of direct concern — Article 256(1), second subparagraph, TFEU — Article 58, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — No precise identification of the contested points in the grounds of the judgment under appeal or specific legal arguments in support of the appeal — Arguments seeking to obtain from the Court a mere re-examination of the arguments presented at first instance — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, consumer information, labelling, marketing standard, packaging, protocol to an agreement, technical standard, tobacco, tobacco industry, traceability








C_2020287EN.01001902.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/19






Order of the Court of (Ninth Chamber) 2 April 2020 — International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) v European Commission
(Case C-553/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related products - Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products - Delegated Regulation and implementing acts - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Lack of direct concern - Article 256(1), second subparagraph, TFEU - Article 58, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - No precise identification of the contested points in the grounds of the judgment under appeal or specific legal arguments in support of the appeal - Arguments seeking to obtain from the Court a mere re-examination of the arguments presented at first instance - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(2020/C 287/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (represented by: F. Scanvic, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.










2.


International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case T-474/18: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Veit v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Competitions — Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates — Classification in step)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, pay scale, professional experience, remuneration of work








C_2020175EN.01001402.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/14






Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 –Veit v ECB
(Case T-474/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Competitions - Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates - Classification in step)
(2020/C 175/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sebastian Veit (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Kujath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking annulment, first, of the ECB’s decision of 3 January 2018 in so far as it attributes to the applicant only salary step 17 in salary band F/G and, second, of the ECB’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Sebastian Veit to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 352, 1. 10. 2018.
Case T-3/19: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Thai World Import & Export v EUIPO — Elvir (Yaco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, frozen product, fruit juice, nut, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020201EN.01002202.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/22






Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Thai World Import & Export v EUIPO — Elvir (Yaco)
(Case T-3/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 201/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Thai World Import & Export Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Elvir (Condé-sur-Vire, France) (represented by: M. Lhotel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 (Case R 319/2018-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Elvir and Thai World Import & Export Co.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Thai World Import & Export Co. Ltd and Elvir shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Case T-571/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — UG v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Termination with notice — Grounds for termination — Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Review of the accuracy of the facts — Lack of evidence — Liability — Material harm — Payment of salaries owed)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, contract staff, full-time employment, indemnification, labour dispute, parental leave, servant (EU), termination of employment, trade union








C_2020175EN.01001001.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/10






Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — UG v Commission
(Case T-571/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Grounds for termination - Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Review of the accuracy of the facts - Lack of evidence - Liability - Material harm - Payment of salaries owed)
(2020/C 175/11)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, L. Radu Bouyon and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 17 October 2016 by which the Commission’s Office for ‘Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg’ (OIL) terminated the applicant’s employment contract pursuant to Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union as from 20 August 2017 and, second, compensation for the material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following that decision and the non-material harm she allegedly suffered as a result of the degrading treatment she claims to have been subject to because of her trade union activity and her period of parental leave.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 October 2016 terminating the contract of indefinite duration of Ms UG;










2.


Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within three months of the delivery of this interim judgment, either the jointly agreed amount of financial compensation resulting from the illegality of the decision of 17 October 2016 or, failing agreement, their submissions on that amount;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case T-383/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in South Korea — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Dumping margin calculation — Calculation of the injury margin — Determination of injury)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, paper








C_2020175EN.01000902.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/9






Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission
(Case T-383/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in South Korea - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Dumping margin calculation - Calculation of the injury margin - Determination of injury)
(2020/C 175/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: J.F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, M. França and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Hobbelen, J. Rivas Andrés and B. Vleeshouwers, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 2017 L 114, p. 3), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Removes the document reproduced in Annex A.32 to the application from the case file;










2.


Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea, in so far as it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Hansol Paper;










4.


Orders the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case C-458/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘GVC Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Directive 2011/96/EU — Article 2(a)(i) and (iii), and Annex I, Part A(ab) and the last indent of Part B — Concepts of ‘companies incorporated under United Kingdom law’ and ‘United Kingdom corporation tax’ — Companies registered in Gibraltar which are subject to corporation tax there)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Gibraltar, United Kingdom, corporation tax, incorporation, nationality of legal persons, parent company, subsidiary, tax harmonisation








C_2020222EN.01000901.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘GVC Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
(Case C-458/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 2(a)(i) and (iii), and Annex I, Part A(ab) and the last indent of Part B - Concepts of ‘companies incorporated under United Kingdom law’ and ‘United Kingdom corporation tax’ - Companies registered in Gibraltar which are subject to corporation tax there)
(2020/C 222/08)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘GVC Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Operative part

Article 2(a)(i) and (iii) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, read in conjunction with Part A(ab) and the last indent of Part B of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts ‘companies incorporated under United Kingdom law’ and ‘corporation tax in the United Kingdom’ in those provisions do not cover companies incorporated in Gibraltar which are subject to corporation tax there.


(1)  OJ C 341 of 24.9.2018.
Case C-567/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 9 — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Use — Stocking of goods for the purposes of offering them or putting them on the market — Storage with a view to dispatching goods sold in an online marketplace which infringe trade mark rights)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, launching of a product, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law








C_2020222EN.01001101.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl
(Case C-567/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 9 - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Use - Stocking of goods for the purposes of offering them or putting them on the market - Storage with a view to dispatching goods sold in an online marketplace which infringe trade mark rights)
(2020/C 222/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendants: Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark and Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without being aware of that infringement, must be regarded as not stocking those goods in order to offer them or put them on the market for the purposes of those provisions, if that person does not itself pursue those aims.


(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.