do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-411/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, use of languages








C_2020271EN.01005302.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/53






Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB
(Case T-411/20)
(2020/C 271/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumtaping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (Official Journal of the European Union L 208 of 1 July 2020)
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Russia, anti-dumping duty, ferro-alloy, import (EU), originating product








L_2020211EN.01002201.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 211/22







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumtaping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 208 of 1 July 2020
)


On the cover page and on page 2, the title:
for:


                  ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumtaping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036’,

read:


                  ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036’.
Joined cases T-347/19 and T-348/19: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Falqui and Poggiolini v Parliament (Actions for annulment — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions — Change in the amount of pensions — Manifestly inadmissible actions)
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, pension scheme








C_2020339EN.01002101.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/21






Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Falqui and Poggiolini v Parliament
(Joined cases T-347/19 and T-348/19) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions - Change in the amount of pensions - Manifestly inadmissible actions)
(2020/C 339/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Enrico Falqui (Florence, Italy), Danilo Poggiolini (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 11 April 2019 drawn up, in the case of both applicants, by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the Parliament’s Directorate General for Finance concerning the adjustment of the pensions they receive following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019 of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy).

Operative part of the order







1.


The actions are rejected as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Enrico Falqui and Mr Danilo Poggiolini shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Joined cases T-395/19, T-396/19, T-405/19, T-408/19, T-419/19, T-423/19, T-424/19, T-428/19, T-433/19, T-437/19, T-443/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-464/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Tognoli and Others v Parliament (Actions for annulment — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions — Change in the amount of pensions — Manifestly inadmissible actions)
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, pension scheme








C_2020339EN.01002201.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/22






Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Tognoli and Others v Parliament
(Joined cases T-395/19, T-396/19, T-405/19, T-408/19, T-419/19, T-423/19, T-424/19, T-428/19, T-433/19, T-437/19, T-443/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-464/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions - Change in the amount of pensions - Manifestly inadmissible actions)
(2020/C 339/28)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Carlo Tognoli (Milan, Italy), and the 19 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented in cases T-395/19, T-396/19, T-419/19, T-423/19, T-424/19, T-428/19, T-433/19, T-437/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-464/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19 by M. Merola, lawyer, and in cases T-405/19, T-408/19 and T-443/19 by M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 11 April 2019 drawn up, in the case of each applicant, by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the Parliament’s Directorate General for Finance concerning the adjustment of the pensions they receive following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019 of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy).

Operative part of the order







1.


The actions are rejected as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Tognoli and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Case C-296/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2020 — Commerzbank AG v E.O.
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, civil procedure, consumer, contract, economic activity, international convention, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, legal domicile








C_2020348EN.01000402.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2020 — Commerzbank AG v E.O.
(Case C-296/20)
(2020/C 348/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commerzbank AG

Defendant: E.O.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 15(1)(c) of the Lugano Convention (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘pursuit’ of a professional or commercial activity in the State bound by the Convention and in which the consumer is domiciled presupposes that the other party was already engaged in cross-border activity at the time when the contract was initiated and concluded or does that provision also apply for the purpose of determining the court having jurisdiction to hear proceedings where the parties were domiciled within the meaning of Articles 59 and 60 of the Lugano Convention in the same State bound by the Convention at the time when the contract was concluded and a foreign element to the legal relationship arose only subsequently [Or. 3] because the consumer relocated at a later date to another State bound by the Convention?










2.


If cross-border activity at the time when the contract was concluded is not necessary:
Does Article 15(1)(c) of the Lugano Convention, read in conjunction with Article 16(2) thereof, generally preclude determination of the court having jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention in the case where the consumer relocated to another State bound by the Convention between the time when the contract was concluded and the time when the proceedings were brought, or is it also necessary for the professional or commercial activities of the other party to be pursued in or directed to the new State of domicile and for the contract to come within the scope of such activities?






(1)  Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2007 L 339, p. 3).
Case T-412/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, company in difficulties, credit institution, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, use of languages








C_2020271EN.01005401.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/54






Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB
(Case T-412/20)
(2020/C 271/68)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.
Corrigendum to Information Notice – Public Consultation – Geographical indications from Japan (Official Journal of the European Union C 217 of 1 July 2020) 2020/C 219/12
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Japan, alcoholic beverage, consumer information, designation of origin, fishery product, fresh meat, fruit, processed food product, public consultation, vegetable








C_2020219EN.01001901.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/19






Corrigendum to Information Notice – Public Consultation – Geographical indications from Japan

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 217 of 1 July 2020
)

(2020/C 219/12)
On page 38, in the table, seventh line, No 6, second column:
for:

‘  ’,

read:

‘  ’.
Case T-410/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — DZ Bank v SRB
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, use of languages








C_2020271EN.01005301.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/53






Action brought on 3 July 2020 — DZ Bank v SRB
(Case T-410/20)
(2020/C 271/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.