do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/784 of 8 April 2020 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the listing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related compounds (Official Journal of the European Union L 188 I of 15 June 2020)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, environmental protection, international convention, organic pollution, pharmaceutical product, pollution control measures, public health, revision of an agreement








L_2020220EN.01001101.xml










9.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 220/11







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/784 of 8 April 2020 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the listing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related compounds

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 188 I of 15 June 2020
)


On page 5, in the Annex, fourth column, point 9, the introductory sentence:
for:


                  ‘By way of derogation, the use of PFOA, its salts and/or PFOA-related compounds shall be allowed until 3 December 2020 in the following articles:’,

read:


                  ‘By way of derogation, the manufacturing, placing on the market and use of PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds shall be allowed until 3 December 2020 for the following purposes:’.
Case C-343/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Point 2 of Article 7 — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Place where the damage occurred — Manipulation of data relating to the emission of exhaust gases from engines produced by a motor vehicle manufacturer)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: combustion gases, damage, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, motor vehicle industry, motor vehicle pollution, software








C_2020287EN.01001301.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG
(Case C-343/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Point 2 of Article 7 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Place where the damage occurred - Manipulation of data relating to the emission of exhaust gases from engines produced by a motor vehicle manufacturer)
(2020/C 287/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer in a Member State has unlawfully equipped its vehicles with software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions before those vehicles are purchased from a third party in another Member State, the place where the damage occurs is in that latter Member State.


(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Case T-430/20: Action brought on 9 July 2020 — KV v Commission
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional experience, professional qualifications, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020279EN.01006002.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/60






Action brought on 9 July 2020 — KV v Commission
(Case T-430/20)
(2020/C 279/75)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: KV (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 23 May 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from competition EPSO/AD/371/19 on the ground of lack of professional experience;










—


annul the decision of 19 September 2019 rejecting the request for review of the applicant’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;










—


annul the appointing authority’s decision of 31 March 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;




order the 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 a manifest error of assessment in so far as the applicant’s three years of professional experience in communication were not taken into consideration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice in so far as the selection board drew up criteria for assessing candidates which did not comply with the competition notice, requiring, in particular, specific professional experience in communication.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equality in so far as the selection panel, by assessing the candidates on the basis of criteria different to those set out in the competition notice, failed to ensure that objectivity and impartiality were respected in the assessment of the candidates’ professional experience.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons in so far as EPSO failed to clarify, with reference to facts, why the applicant’s professional experience did not meet the criteria set out in the competition notice.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equality of parties in proceedings in so far as EPSO, by not providing a sufficient statement of reasons, failed to allow the applicant sufficiently to develop his allegations from the time at which he lodged his appeal.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 8 July 2020 2020/C 226/02
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020226EN.01000201.xml










9.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 July 2020
(2020/C 226/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1286 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4493 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89923 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4310 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0624 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6885 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,748 




HUF


Hungarian forint


355,49 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4765 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8408 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7478 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6242 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5338 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7468 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7237 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5745 




KRW


South Korean won


1 348,86 




ZAR


South African rand


19,1628 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9163 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5385 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 268,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8219 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,898 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,4584 




THB


Thai baht


35,252 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0439 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,6433 




INR


Indian rupee


84,6455 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-104/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common commercial policy — Dumping — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(10) and (11) — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2020287EN.01000802.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/8






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-104/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common commercial policy - Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(10) and (11) - Rights of the defence)
(2020/C 287/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China.


(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case C-308/20 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-535/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01001902.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/19






Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-535/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-308/20 P)
(2021/C 35/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 226/06
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, cultural event, epidemic, infectious disease








C_2020226EN.01001001.xml










9.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/10






EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 226/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


3 April 2020




Case No


84931




Decision No


032/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 compensation scheme for the cancellation or postponement of cultural events.




Legal basis


Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for organisers in the culture sector for cancellations, closings or postponements of events as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


The objective of the scheme is to compensate for losses or additional costs caused by the cancellation or postponement of cultural events to combat the spread of the Covid-19 virus.




Form of aid


Grants




Budget


NOK 300 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration


14 April to 31 May 2020




Economic sectors


Cultural sector




Name and address of the granting authority


Arts Council Norway
Postboks 4808 Nydalen
0422 Oslo
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-264/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Internet video platform — Uploading of a film without the consent of the rightholder — Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 8 — Applicant’s right of information — Article 8(2)(a) — Definition of ‘addresses’ — Email address, IP address and telephone number — Not included)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet address, data protection, data transmission, disclosure of information, electronic mail, goods and services, intellectual property, telephone, web surfer








C_2020287EN.01001101.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.
(Case C-264/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Internet video platform - Uploading of a film without the consent of the rightholder - Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 8 - Applicant’s right of information - Article 8(2)(a) - Definition of ‘addresses’ - Email address, IP address and telephone number - Not included)
(2020/C 287/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Constantin Film Verleih GmbH

Defendants: YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘addresses’ contained in that provision does not cover, in respect of a user who has uploaded files which infringe an intellectual property right, his or her email address, telephone number and IP address used to upload those files or the IP address used when the user’s account was last accessed.


(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Case C-374/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Adjustment of deductions — Variation in the deduction entitlement — Capital goods used for both taxed and exempt transactions — Cessation of the activity giving rise to the right of deduction — Remaining use solely for exempt transactions)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building, capital goods, catering industry, cessation of trading, social facilities, tax relief








C_2020287EN.01001302.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler
(Case C-374/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Adjustment of deductions - Variation in the deduction entitlement - Capital goods used for both taxed and exempt transactions - Cessation of the activity giving rise to the right of deduction - Remaining use solely for exempt transactions)
(2020/C 287/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HF

Defendant: Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184, 185 and 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which a taxable person who has acquired the right to deduct, on a pro-rata basis, value added tax (VAT) related to the construction of a cafeteria, which is annexed to the retirement home operated by him as an activity exempt from VAT and which is intended to be used for both taxed and exempt transactions, is required to adjust the initial VAT deduction where he has ceased all taxed transactions in that cafeteria’s premises, if he has continued to carry out exempt transactions in those premises, thus using them henceforth only for those transactions.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case C-241/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Action for annulment and compensation)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, entrepreneur, indemnification, international sanctions








C_2020287EN.01001001.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/10






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-241/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment and compensation)
(2020/C 287/13)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet, L. Baumgart and A. Tizzano, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Mr George Haswani to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case C-307/20 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-445/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01001901.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/19






Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-445/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-307/20 P)
(2021/C 35/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-431/20: Action brought on 9 July 2020 — UniCredit Bank v SRB
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: company in difficulties, credit institution, financing plan, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020279EN.01006101.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/61






Action brought on 9 July 2020 — UniCredit Bank v SRB
(Case T-431/20)
(2020/C 279/76)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: UniCredit Bank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Schäfer, H. Großerichter and F. Kruis, 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 annexes, in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration, since the contested decision and Annexes I and II thereto did not contain an adequate statement of reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, since the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the contested decision, which contains an individual measure adversely affecting the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter, since it is in practice impossible to carry out an effective judicial review of the accuracy of the decision’s content.