do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-304/20: Action brought on 20 May 2020 — Molina Fernández v SRB
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, damages, right to justice, shareholder








C_2020247EN.01003202.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/32






Action brought on 20 May 2020 — Molina Fernández v SRB
(Case T-304/20)
(2020/C 247/43)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Laura Molina Fernández (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón and A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Español S.A. have been effected.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


In the first place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report was not drawn up by a genuinely independent expert, as required by Article 20(16) to (18) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).










2.


In the second place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report is unlawful because the method of analysis used by Deloitte is incorrect, which led Deloitte to reach equally incorrect conclusions with seriously prejudicial effects on the applicant, who has unduly and unfairly been deprived of the compensation to which she is entitled.










3.


In the third place, the basis of the Valuation 3 Report on Banco Popular’s financial situation when it was put into resolution is incorrect.
Case C-214/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland, made on 20 May 2020 — MG v Dublin City Council
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, requisitioning of workers, work contract, working time








C_2020262EN.01001602.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/16






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland, made on 20 May 2020 — MG v Dublin City Council
(Case C-214/20)
(2020/C 262/21)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

The Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Complainant: MG

Respondent: Dublin City Council

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2 of the Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that a worker, when ‘on call’ at a location or locations of his choosing without requirement at any time while on- call to notify the employer of his or her location, but subject only to the requirement that the worker be able to respond to a ‘call in’ within a desirable turn-out period of 5 minutes and a maximum turn-out period of 10 minutes, is engaged in working time while on-call?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can a worker who is not restricted other than by a requirement to respond to a call- in within a desirable turn-out period of 5 minutes and a maximum turn-out period of 10 minutes, and who is able, without restriction, to be employed contemporaneously by another employer or to engage in business on his own account while ‘on-call’, be regarded as engaged in ‘working time’ on behalf of the employer in respect of which employment he or she is ‘on call’?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, if the worker actually is employed by a second employer while ‘on call’, subject only to a requirement that the second employer must release the worker when called in by the first employer, mean that the time spent by the worker ‘on call’ and working for the second employer be regarded as working time in terms of his relationship with the first employer?










4.


If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does a worker who works for a second employer while on call to his first employer accrue working time in relation to the first and second employer contemporaneously?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9).
Notice concerning the provisional application of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States of the other part
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Solomon Islands, cooperation agreement (EU), cooperation policy, interim agreement (EU)








L_2020158EN.01000101.xml










20.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 158/1







Notice concerning the provisional application of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States of the other part

The European Union and Solomon Islands have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for the provisional application of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part (1), in accordance with Article 76(2) of that Agreement. Consequently, the Agreement applies provisionally as from 17 May 2020 between the European Union and Solomon Islands.


(1)  
            OJ L 272, 16.10.2009, p. 1.
Case T-526/19: Order of the General Court of 20 May 2020 — Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Energy — Internal market in natural gas — Directive (EU) 2019/692 — Application of Directive 2009/73/EC to gas lines to or from third countries — No direct concern — Inadmissibility — Production of documents obtained unlawfully)
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: energy transport, equal treatment, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, security of supply, single market, third country








C_2020247EN.01001301.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/13






Order of the General Court of 20 May 2020 — Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council
(Case T-526/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Energy - Internal market in natural gas - Directive (EU) 2019/692 - Application of Directive 2009/73/EC to gas lines to or from third countries - No direct concern - Inadmissibility - Production of documents obtained unlawfully)
(2020/C 247/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nord Stream 2 AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Van den Hende and J. Penz-Evren, lawyers, and M. Schonberg, Solicitor advocate)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Etienne and I. McDowell, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco, S. Boelaert and K. Pavlaki, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Directive (EU) 2019/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (OJ 2019 L 117, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The documents produced by Nord Stream 2 AG as Annexes A. 14 and O. 20 are removed from the file and there is no need to take account of the passages of the application and annexes in which extracts of those documents are reproduced.










2.


The application for a decision on a procedural issue submitted by the Council of the European Union is dismissed as to the remainder.










3.


The documents produced by Nord Stream 2 as Annexes M. 26 and M. 30 are removed from the file.










4.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










5.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Estonia, by the Republic of Latvia, by the Republic of Lithuania, by the Republic of Poland and by the European Commission.










6.


Nord Stream 2 is ordered to pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council, except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










7.


Nord Stream 2, the Parliament and the Council, as well as the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and the Commission, are to bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Case T-299/20: Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: duties of civil servants, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2020262EN.01002902.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/29






Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB
(Case T-299/20)
(2020/C 262/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected;










—


grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered;










—


grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is manifestly illegal insofar as it endorses the conclusions of the Panel which substituted its own assessment to that of the Appointing authority.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation, wrong interpretation by the Panel of the legal concept of harassment and violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and duty of care.










5.


The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the contested decisions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/709 of 20 May 2020 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Jambon de Bayonne’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation








L_2020166EN.01000201.xml










28.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 166/2








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/709
of 20 May 2020
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Jambon de Bayonne’ (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 the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Jambon de Bayonne’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2139/98 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation (3).












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Jambon de Bayonne’ (PGI) are hereby approved.


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, 20 May 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2139/98 of 06 October 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 270, 7.10.1998, p. 7).

(3)  
            OJ C 18, 20.1.2020, p. 39.
Case T-530/19: Order of the General Court of 20 May 2020 — Nord Stream v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Energy — Internal market in natural gas — Directive (EU) 2019/692 — Addition of Article 49a to Directive 2009/73/EC concerning the adoption of decisions derogating from certain provisions of that directive — Application of Directive 2009/73 to gas lines to or from third countries — Objection to the deadline of 24 May 2020 for granting derogations from the obligations laid down by Directive 2009/73 — No direct concern — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: energy transport, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, principle of proportionality, security of supply, single market, third country








C_2020247EN.01001401.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/14






Order of the General Court of 20 May 2020 — Nord Stream v Parliament and Council
(Case T-530/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Energy - Internal market in natural gas - Directive (EU) 2019/692 - Addition of Article 49a to Directive 2009/73/EC concerning the adoption of decisions derogating from certain provisions of that directive - Application of Directive 2009/73 to gas lines to or from third countries - Objection to the deadline of 24 May 2020 for granting derogations from the obligations laid down by Directive 2009/73 - No direct concern - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 247/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nord Stream AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Raible, C. von Köckritz and J. von Andreae, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by L. Visaggio, J. Etienne and I. McDowell, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Directive (EU) 2019/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (OJ 2019 L 117, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Estonia, by the Republic of Latvia, by the Republic of Lithuania, by the Republic of Poland and by the European Commission.










3.


Nord Stream AG is ordered to pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union, except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










4.


Nord Stream, the Parliament and the Council, as well as the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and the Commission, are to bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 19 May 2020 2020/C 172/02
Date: 2020-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020172EN.01000201.xml










20.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 May 2020
(2020/C 172/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0950 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,00 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4562 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89535 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5685 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0633 




ISK


Iceland króna


156,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9153 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,490 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5510 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8428 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,4448 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6751 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5251 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4870 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8004 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5513 




KRW


South Korean won


1 341,19 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9649 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7816 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5713 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 177,50 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7583 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,567 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,3839 




THB


Thai baht


34,947 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2357 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,8567 




INR


Indian rupee


82,8535 






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