do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-205/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 8 May 2020 — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative sanction, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, labour law, pay, posted worker, principle of proportionality, provision of services








C_2020348EN.01000202.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 8 May 2020 — NE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld
(Case C-205/20)
(2020/C 348/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NE

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Interested party: Finanzpolizei Team 91

Questions referred







1.


Is the requirement of proportionality of penalties laid down in Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU (1) and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its orders in Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-645/18, EU:C:2019:1108) (2) and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-140/19, C-141/19, C-492/19, C-493/19 and C-494/19, EU:2019:1103) (3) a directly applicable provision of the Directive?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Does the interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law permit and require the national court and administrative authority to supplement — in the absence of new legislation at national level — the domestic penal provisions applicable in the present proceedings with the criteria of the requirement of proportionality laid down in the orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-645/18, EU:C:2019:1108) and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-140/19, C-141/19, C-492/19, C-493/19 and C-494/19, EU:2019:1103)?






(1)  Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11).

(2)  EU:C:2019:1108.

(3)  EU:2019:1103.
Case T-259/20: Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, carriage of passengers, discrimination on the basis of nationality, epidemic, freedom to provide services, infectious disease, low cost airline








C_2020215EN.01005901.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/59






Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-259/20)
(2020/C 215/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 March 2020 on State aid SA.56765; (1) and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.










—


The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.





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 that the European Commission’s decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality and free movement of services that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The decision of the European Commission ignores the role of such pan-European airlines in the market structure of EU Member States by allowing France to reserve aid only to those EU airlines to which France has issued EU operating licenses. Article 107(2)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons in its decision.






(1)  European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 March 2020 on State aid SA.56765 (2020/N) — France COVID-19 — Moratoire sur le paiement de taxes aéronautiques en faveur des entreprises de transport public aérien (not yet published at the OJ).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9794 – Renault/Ferrovial/Car Sharing Mobility Services) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 167/03
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: airport, building industry, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, multinational enterprise, service, toll, used goods, vehicle parts








C_2020167EN.01001101.xml










15.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/11






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9794 – Renault/Ferrovial/Car Sharing Mobility Services)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 167/03)
On 8 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 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 32020M9794. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 May 2020 2020/C 156/02
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020156EN.01000501.xml










8.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 May 2020
(2020/C 156/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0783 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,91 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4605 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87478 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6200 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0530 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,0405 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,158 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,36 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5467 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8235 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7792 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6704 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5177 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3580 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7820 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5303 




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,18 




ZAR


South African rand


20,0698 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6427 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5665 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 223,02 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6631 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,497 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,5801 




THB


Thai baht


34,969 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2271 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0677 




INR


Indian rupee


81,7685 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Council Decision (EU) 2020/650 of 8 May 2020 appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Estonia, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Estonia, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2020153EN.01000301.xml










15.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 153/3








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/650
of 8 May 2020
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Estonia, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Estonian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 10 December 2019, 20 January 2020, 3 February 2020 and 26 March 2020, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2019/2157 (1), (EU) 2020/102 (2), (EU) 2020/144 (3) and (EU) 2020/511 (4) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(2)


A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate on the basis of which Mr Siim SUURSILD (Representative of a local body with political accountability to an elected Assembly: Pärnu City Council) was proposed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:






—


Mr Siim SUURSILD, Member of a Local Assembly: Pärnu City Council (change of mandate).






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 8 May 2020.


For the Council


The President

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/102 of 20 January 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 20, 24.1.2020, p. 2).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/144 of 3 February 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 32, 4.2.2020, p. 16).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/511 of 26 March 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 113, 8.4.2020, p. 18).
Case C-194/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, child, family migration, foreign national, residence permit








C_2020262EN.01001401.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg
(Case C-194/20)
(2020/C 262/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BY, CX, FU, DW, EV

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Questions referred







1.


Does the entitlement of Turkish children under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 (1) also include a right of residence in the host Member State without the need to fulfil further conditions?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






(a)


Does an entitlement to residence under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 require that the parents of the Turkish children benefiting from that provision have already acquired rights under Article 6(1) or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80?










(b)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Is legal employment within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted in the same way as in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80?










(c)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Can an entitlement to residence in respect of Turkish children under the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 already arise after one of the parents has been in legal employment in the host Member State for a period of (only) three months?










(d)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Does the right of residence of Turkish children also entail, without the need to fulfil further conditions, a right of residence for one or both parents with custody?










(1)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association.
Case C-195/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — XC
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, imprisonment, offence








C_2020230EN.01001802.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — XC
(Case C-195/20)
(2020/C 230/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XC

Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Is Article 27(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the specialty rule does not preclude a measure involving deprivation of liberty for an offence committed prior to surrender other than that on which the surrender is based if the person voluntarily left the territory of the issuing Member State after the surrender, was subsequently surrendered again by another executing Member State to the territory of the issuing Member State pursuant to a new European arrest warrant, and the second executing Member State gave its consent to prosecution, sentencing and execution in respect of that other offence?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24.
Case T-271/20: Action brought on 8 May 2020 — JS v SRB
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2020247EN.01002001.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/20






Action brought on 8 May 2020 — JS v SRB
(Case T-271/20)
(2020/C 247/30)
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 decision of 14 June 2019 decision communicated to the applicant on 17 June 2019 and rejecting his request for assistance of 2 May 2019;










—


annul in addition, and so far as necessary, the decision communicated to the applicant on 29 January 2020 rejecting his complaint of 14 September 2019;










—


order compensation of the non-material prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000;










—


order furthermore compensation of his quantified and evidenced material prejudice evaluated at EUR 77 408;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 2.1 of the SRB policy adopted by decision of the plenary session of the SRB of 29 November 2017. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 7.3 of the said SRB policy.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a 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)  Policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing psychological harassment and sexual harassment.
Case T-266/20: Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, culture, education, registered trade mark, sport, trade-mark law








C_2020209EN.01004001.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/40






Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)
(Case T-266/20)
(2020/C 209/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE — Application for registration No 15 508 161

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 235/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


vary the contested decision and find that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(1)(b) of EUTMR are not fulfilled in the present case;










—


or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal) and order the intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Opposition Division.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 92 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Notice concerning the anti-subsidy measures in force on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey: change of name of a company subject to the countervailing duty rate for non-sampled cooperating companies 2020/C 156/04
Date: 2020-05-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Türkiye, countervailing charge, freshwater fish, import (EU), originating product








C_2020156EN.01001001.xml










8.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/10






Notice concerning the anti-subsidy measures in force on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey: change of name of a company subject to the countervailing duty rate for non-sampled cooperating companies
(2020/C 156/04)
Imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey are subject to definitive countervailing duties imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 (1).
Penta Su Ürünleri Üretim ve Sanayi Tic. A.Ş., TARIC (2) additional code B985, a company subject to the countervailing duty rate for non-sampled cooperating companies of 7,6 %, informed the Commission that it had changed its name to Fishark Su Ürünleri Üretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
The company, following a change of its name (3) requested on 16 January 2020, the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate applied to it under its previous name.
The Commission examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309.
Therefore, the references in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 to:






Penta Su Ürünleri Üretim ve Sanayi Tic. A.Ş.


B985




Should be read as:






Fishark Su Ürünleri Üretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.


B985




The TARIC additional code B985 previously attributed to Penta Su Ürünleri Üretim ve Sanayi Tic. A.Ş. shall apply to Fishark Su Ürünleri Üretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.


(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 of 26 February 2015 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 12).

(2)  The Integrated Tariff of the European Union.

(3)  Turkish Trade Registry Gazette No 9827 of 13.5.2019.