do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-267/19 and C-323/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document — Non adversarial proceedings — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 18 TFEU — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, equal treatment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, notary, official document, right to justice








C_2020240EN.01002501.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/25






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19)
(Joined Cases C-267/19 and C-323/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document - Non adversarial proceedings - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 18 TFEU - Right to a fair trial - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2020/C 240/33)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Trgovački sud u Zagrebu

Parties in the main proceedings


Applicants: PARKING d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. (C-323/19)

Defendants: SAWAL d.o.o. . (C-267/19), Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation authorising notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, to issue writs of execution which, as is clear from the judgment of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193), cannot be recognised and enforced in another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case C-96/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich — Austria) — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Working days and rest days — Digital tachographs — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Working days not recorded on a driver card and no record sheets kept — National legislation requiring the driver to present an attestation from his employer in such circumstances — Validity of the form annexed to Decision 2009/959/EU)
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data recording, drivers, driving period, form, road safety, road transport, safety device, working time








C_2020240EN.01001702.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich — Austria) — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln
(Case C-96/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Working days and rest days - Digital tachographs - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Working days not recorded on a driver card and no record sheets kept - National legislation requiring the driver to present an attestation from his employer in such circumstances - Validity of the form annexed to Decision 2009/959/EU)
(2020/C 240/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: VO

Respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The second subparagraph of Article 34(3) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport is to be interpreted such that the prohibition it contains does not encompass national legislation under which the driver of a vehicle fitted with a digital tachograph is required to produce, as secondary evidence of his activities, in the absence of automatic and manual tachograph records, an attestation of activities drawn up by his employer in accordance with the form annexed to Commission Decision 2009/959/EU of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities;










2.


There is nothing arising from the examination of the second question which might affect the validity of the Commission form annexed to Decision 2009/959.






(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case C-216/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2020 — C.E. Roeper GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, animal product, apiculture, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading








C_2020279EN.01002901.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2020 — C.E. Roeper GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
(Case C-216/20)
(2020/C 279/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: C.E. Roeper GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Questions referred







1.


Are the Explanatory Notes to subheading 1521 9099 (1) of the Combined Nomenclature (2) applicable in so far as the word ‘geschmolzen’ [melted] is used?










2.


If the first question referred is answered in the negative, is the term ‘raw’ within the meaning of subheading 1521 9091 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that beeswax which has been melted down in the exporting country and from which foreign bodies have been mechanically separated during the process of melting it down, whereby some foreign bodies still remain in beeswax, must be classified under that subheading?






(1)  Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (OJ 2019 C 119, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2019 L 280, p. 1).
Case C-641/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1(1) — Concepts of ‘civil and commercial matters’ and ‘administrative matters’ — Scope — Activities of ship classification and certification societies — Acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis — Public powers — Immunity from jurisdiction)
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approval, conflict of jurisdiction, damages, firm governed by commercial law, international law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, public authorities, vessel








C_2020240EN.01001001.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/10






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale
(Case C-641/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(1) - Concepts of ‘civil and commercial matters’ and ‘administrative matters’ - Scope - Activities of ship classification and certification societies - Acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis - Public powers - Immunity from jurisdiction)
(2020/C 240/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LG and Others

Defendants: Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which it is for the referring court to determine. The principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-277/20: Action brought on 7 May 2020 — MKB Multifunds v Commission
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, investment company, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2020247EN.01002401.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/24






Action brought on 7 May 2020 — MKB Multifunds v Commission
(Case T-277/20)
(2020/C 247/34)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: MKB Multifunds BV (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van de Hel en R. Rampersad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 27 February 2020 concerning State aid SA.55704 (2019/FC) — The Netherlands — Alleged aid related to the Dutch Venture Initiative (‘DVI’);










—


order the Commission to reopen its investigation;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.






1.


First plea: the Commission erred in determining that the investments of DVI, a fund-of-funds structure, in private equity funds were market conform.










2.


Second plea: the Commission erred in determining that the overall fee structure of the European Investment Fund (EIF) was in line with the fee structure of a comparable market operator of fund-of-funds.










3.


Third plea: the Commission erred in determining that the investment by the Netherlands Government in DVI’s fund-of-funds structure was market conform.
Case C-687/19: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ryanair Ltd v PJ
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, mental illness, transport accident








C_2020320EN.01002004.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/20






Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ryanair Ltd v PJ
(Case C-687/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/41)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9822 – Bridgepoint/Groupe Financière CEP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 164/02
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: broker, consultancy, credit insurance, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate credit








C_2020164EN.01000201.xml










13.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9822 – Bridgepoint/Groupe Financière CEP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 164/02)
On 7 May 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 French 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 32020M9822. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-148/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2020 — BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA v European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH) (Appeal — State aid — Regional aid to the steel industry — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Private operator test — Manifest error — Burden of proof — Limits of judicial review)
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, Walloon region (Belgium), aid to undertakings, control of State aid, iron and steel industry, judicial review, proof, regional aid








C_2020240EN.01001801.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/18






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2020 — BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA v European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)
(Case C-148/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Regional aid to the steel industry - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Private operator test - Manifest error - Burden of proof - Limits of judicial review)
(2020/C 240/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favert and Q. Declève, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Case C-197/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2020 — KAHL GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, animal product, apiculture, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading








C_2020279EN.01002602.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2020 — KAHL GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover
(Case C-197/20)
(2020/C 279/37)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KAHL GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Questions referred







1.


Are the Explanatory Notes to subheading 1521 9099 (1) of the Combined Nomenclature (2) applicable in so far as the word ‘geschmolzen’ [melted] is used?










2.


If the first question referred is answered in the negative, is the term ‘raw’ within the meaning of subheading 1521 9091 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that beeswax which has been melted down in the exporting country and from which foreign bodies have been mechanically separated during the process of melting it down, whereby some foreign bodies still remain in beeswax, must be classified under that subheading?






(1)  Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (OJ 2019 C 119, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2019 L 280, p. 1).
Case C-547/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 44 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 — Article 11(1) — Supply of services — Point of reference for tax purposes — Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ — Taxable person for VAT purposes — Subsidiary of a company of a non-Member State located in a Member State)
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, nationality of legal persons, provision of services, subsidiary, taxpayer








C_2020240EN.01000302.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/3






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
(Case C-547/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 11(1) - Supply of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Taxable person for VAT purposes - Subsidiary of a company of a non-Member State located in a Member State)
(2020/C 240/04)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, and Article 11(1) and Article 22(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence, in the territory of a Member State, of a fixed establishment of a company established in a non-Member State may not be inferred by a supplier of services from the mere fact that that company has a subsidiary there, and that supplier is not required to inquire, for the purposes of such an assessment, into contractual relationships between the two entities.


(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Case T-270/20: Action brought on 7 May 2020 — JS v SRB
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, defamation, indemnification, job description, pay freeze, staff assessment








C_2020247EN.01001902.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/19






Action brought on 7 May 2020 — JS v SRB
(Case T-270/20)
(2020/C 247/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the 2018 appraisal report communicated to him on 12 June 2019;










—


annul also, and so far as necessary, the decision dated 22 January 2020, notified on 28 January 2020, rejecting his complaint of 12 September 2019;










—


order the payment of financial compensation in respect of non-material harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at the sum of EUR 15 000;










—


order compensation of his material prejudice at the sum of EUR 2 322 caused by the salary freeze at AD6/3 for the period of 12 months since August 2019;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and libellous accusations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the lack of professional objectives and the lack of an applicable job description.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of impartiality and breach of the decision of the SRB taken in its plenary session of 25 March 2015. (1)











4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5 of the said SRB decision of 25 March 2015 and breach of the duty of care.
With regard to the request for compensation, the applicant relies on the fault committed by the defendant, the damage he suffered, and the link between the fault and the damage.






(1)  Decision of the Board of 25 March 2015 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations for temporary staff.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 May 2020 2020/C 152/02
Date: 2020-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020152EN.01000201.xml










7.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 May 2020
(2020/C 152/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0807 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4618 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87253 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6278 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0530 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,0900 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,987 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,59 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5394 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8233 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7178 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7046 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5225 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3763 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7839 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5335 




KRW


South Korean won


1 323,48 




ZAR


South African rand


20,0603 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6707 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5690 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 259,13 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6713 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,620 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,7789 




THB


Thai baht


35,004 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0896 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0485 




INR


Indian rupee


81,9815 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.