do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/706 of 26 May 2020 amending for the 314th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (Official Journal of the European Union OJ L 164, 27 May 2020)
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism








L_2020195EN.01011701.xml










19.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 195/117







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/706 of 26 May 2020 amending for the 314th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations

(Official Journal of the European Union 
OJ L 164, 27 May 2020
)

On page 50, the Annex is replaced as follows:


‘ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading “Natural persons”:


                              “Amir Muhammad Sa’id Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla (original script: أمیر محمد سعید عبد الرحم المولى) (good quality alias (a) Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, (b) Hajji Abdallah, (c) Abu ‘Umar al-Turkmani, (d) Abdullah Qardash, (e) Abu ‘Abdullah Qardash, (f) al-Hajj Abdullah Qardash, (g) Hajji Abdullah Al-Afari, (h) `Abdul Amir Muhammad Sa'id Salbi, (i) Muhammad Sa'id `Abd-al-Rahman al-Mawla, (j) Amir Muhammad Sa’id ‘Abd-al-Rahman Muhammad al-Mula; low quality alias (a) Al-Ustadh, (b) Ustadh Ahmad). Date of birth: (a) 5.10.1976, (b) 1.10.1976. Place of birth: (a) Tall’Afar, Iraq, (b) Mosul, Iraq. Nationality: Iraqi. Other information: Leader of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, listed as Al-Qaida in Iraq. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 21.5.2020.”
                           



                  ’
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/849 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/847 concerning restrictive measures against Iran 2020/C 205/04
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2020205EN.01001001.xml










19.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/10






Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/849 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/847 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2020/C 205/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that are presently designated in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) as amended by Council Decision (CFSP)2020/849 (2) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/847 (4) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities presently designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 26 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 2020, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 196, 19.6.2020, p. 8.

(3)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 196, 19.6.2020, p. 1.
Case C-272/20 P: Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), contract staff, equal treatment, pay scale, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020371EN.01000601.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/6






Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank
(Case C-272/20 P)
(2020/C 371/03)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Sebastian Veit (represented by: K. Kujath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18;










—


annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 3 January 2018 on the classification of the appellant with effect from 1 January 2018, as clarified by the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2018;










—


order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal infringes EU law. The General Court misinterpreted the general principle of equal treatment under Articles 20, 51(1) and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The General Court erred in deciding that the difference in treatment of internal and external candidates for recruitment with regard to their classification in step by the European Central Bank on the basis of various rules was justified and proportionate.
The case-law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on the classification in step of an official in service, which was applied mutatis mutandis to the case by the General Court, does not correspond with the facts that have given rise to the dispute.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9874 – Tokyo Century Corporation/Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 205/12
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, financial services, merger control, provision of services, rental business, telecommunications








C_2020205EN.01002501.xml










19.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9874 – Tokyo Century Corporation/Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 205/12)

1.   
On 12 June 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Tokyo Century Corporation (‘Tokyo Century’, Japan),










—


Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (‘NTT’, Japan),










—


NTT Finance Corporation, the joint venture company (‘JV’, Japan).




Tokyo Century and NTT acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Tokyo Century: financial services company that provides customers with lease financing,










—


for NTT: telecommunications company, operating business segments such as regional communications, mobile communications, long distance and international communications,










—


for the JV: global finance and leasing business company active in the provision of aviation leasing services.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9874 – Tokyo Century Corporation/Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation/JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-378/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, emergency aid, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, infectious disease, low cost airline, right of establishment








C_2020255EN.01003501.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/35






Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-378/20)
(2020/C 255/46)
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 15 April 2020 on State aid SA.56795 (1); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated the legal requirement that aid authorised under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU shall make good the damage caused by exceptional occurrences and not only the damage suffered by one victim of such occurrences.










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 violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment 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 European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Denmark by authorising Denmark to reserve aid only to SAS. 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.










4.


Fourth 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.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.






(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 15 April 2020 on State aid SA.56795 -- Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (not yet published in the Official Journal)
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 18 June 2020 2020/C 205/06
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020205EN.01001201.xml










19.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/12






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 June 2020
(2020/C 205/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1222 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,00 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4556 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90028 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5525 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0667 




ISK


Iceland króna


153,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,7083 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,689 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,94 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4647 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8393 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6968 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6356 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5218 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6972 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7420 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5642 




KRW


South Korean won


1 359,26 




ZAR


South African rand


19,5334 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9545 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5463 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 806,19 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8008 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,302 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,2063 




THB


Thai baht


34,928 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9738 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,2628 




INR


Indian rupee


85,6730 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-271/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2020 — Aurubis AG v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, copper, industrial pollution, metallurgical industry








C_2020287EN.01002801.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2020 — Aurubis AG v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-271/20)
(2020/C 287/44)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Aurubis AG

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Are the requirements of Article 3(d) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) for a free allocation of emission allowances on the basis of a sub-installation with a fuel emission value fulfilled where, in an installation for the production of non-ferrous metals in accordance with Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, a sulphur-containing copper concentrate is used in a flash smelting furnace to produce primary copper and the non-measurable heat required to melt the copper ore contained in the concentrate is produced essentially through oxidation of the sulphur contained in the concentrate, meaning that the copper concentrate is used both as a source of raw material and as a combustible material to generate heat?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
Can entitlements to a further free allocation of emission allowances for the third trading period be met after the end of the third trading period with entitlements for the fourth trading period where the existence of the allowance entitlement is established by a court only after expiry of the third trading period, or do allowance entitlements that have not yet been met lapse on expiry of the third trading period?






(1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
Special Report No 10/2020 ‘EU transport infrastructures: more speed needed in megaproject implementation to deliver network effects on time’ 2020/C 205/08
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, co-financing, common transport policy, cross-border cooperation, intra-EU transport, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport planning








C_2020205EN.01001501.xml










19.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/15






Special Report No 10/2020
‘EU transport infrastructures: more speed needed in megaproject implementation to deliver network effects on time’
(2020/C 205/08)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 10/2020 ‘EU transport infrastructures: more speed needed in megaproject implementation to deliver network effects on time’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-392/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Flašker v Commission
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovenia, State aid, control of State aid, health care, pharmacy, services of general interest








C_2020297EN.01004001.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/40






Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Flašker v Commission
(Case T-392/20)
(2020/C 297/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Petra Flašker (Grosuplje, Slovenia) (represented by: K. Zdolšek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission dated 24 March 2020 in Case SA.43546 — Alleged State aid to Lekarna Ljubljana, declaring that the measures complained of by the applicant do not constitute State aid without opening a formal investigation;










—


order the European Commission to pay its own costs and also those incurred by the applicant.





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 that the contested decision contains material contradictions in reasoning that amount to an infringement of the duty to state reasons prescribed by Article 296 TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law in the Commission’s conclusion that the measures constitute existing aid.






—


The applicant argues in that respect that the Commission’s decision is based on inaccurate and incomplete facts and on the incorrect legal categorisation of those facts that amount to the infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the errors in fact and law described in the first two pleas reveal enough difficulties in the Commission’s assessment of this case and the insufficient examination of the relevant facts prior to adopting the decision to warrant a formal investigation procedure. These difficulties are compounded by other, procedural, difficulties presented in this third plea. In the presence of those difficulties, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has, by refusing to do so, infringed the applicant’s procedural rights deriving from Article 108(2) of TFEU.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier Transportation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 205/10
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, rail transport, service








C_2020205EN.01002101.xml










19.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier Transportation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 205/10)

1.   
On 11 June 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Alstom S.A. (France),










—


Bombardier Transportation (Investment) UK Ltd (UK).




Alstom acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Bombardier Transportation.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Alstom: rail transport industry, including transport solutions (from high-speed and mainline trains to metros, trams and e-buses), personalised services (maintenance and modernisation) offerings dedicated to passengers and infrastructure, digital mobility and signalling solutions,










—


for Bombardier Transportation: rail solutions, including trains, sub-systems, signalling, complete turnkey transport systems and services.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier Transportation
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301





Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-379/20: Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2020-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, emergency aid, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, infectious disease, low cost airline, right of establishment








C_2020255EN.01003601.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/36






Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-379/20)
(2020/C 255/47)
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 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 (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 five pleas in law, which are similar to those raised in case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission.


(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 -- Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (not yet published in the Official Journal)