do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-549/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Romania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, infringement procedure (EU), money laundering, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), terrorism financing








C_2020297EN.01000501.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-549/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures - Article 260(3) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a lump sum)
(2020/C 297/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, L. Flynn, G. von Rintelen, L. Nicolae and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Defendant: Romania (represented initially by: C.-R. Canţăr, E. Gane, L. Liţu and R.I. Haţieganu, and subsequently by E. Gane, L. Liţu and R.I. Haţieganu, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, P. Cottin and J.-C. Halleux, Agents), Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 December 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849;










2.


Orders Romania to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 3 000 000;










3.


Orders Romania to pay the costs;










4.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2020/1099 of 16 July 2020 on the acceptance of a third State’s contribution to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR ALTHEA) (BiH/30/2020)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU military mission, Ukraine, financial aid, military cooperation




L_2020241EN.01003101.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 241/31








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1099
of 16 July 2020
         
on the acceptance of a third State’s contribution to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR ALTHEA) (BiH/30/2020)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), in particular Article 11 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 11(2) of Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.












(2)


Following the recommendations regarding a contribution from Ukraine by the EU Operation Commander and by the European Union Military Committee, the contribution from Ukraine should be accepted and considered to be significant.












(3)


In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Consequently, Denmark is not participating in the adoption of this Decision and is neither bound by it nor subject to its application.












(4)


On 12 and 13 December 2002, the Copenhagen European Council adopted a declaration stating that the ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements and the implementation thereof will apply only to those Member States of the Union which are also either NATO members or members of the ‘Partnership for Peace’ programme, and which have consequently concluded bilateral security agreements with NATO,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

1.   The contribution from Ukraine to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR ALTHEA) is accepted and considered to be significant.


2.   Ukraine is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUFOR ALTHEA.



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




Done at Brussels, 16 July 2020.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 252, 28.7.2004, p. 10.
Case T-454/20: Action brought on 16 July 2020 — Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia v Commission
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cambodia, clothing industry, generalised preferences, originating product, principle of proportionality, tariff preference








C_2020287EN.01004201.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/42






Action brought on 16 July 2020 — Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia v Commission
(Case T-454/20)
(2020/C 287/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia (Phnom Penh, Cambodia) (represented by: C. Ziegler and S. Monti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/550 of 12 February 2020 amending Annexes II and IV to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the temporary withdrawal of the arrangements referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 in respect of certain products originating in the Kingdom of Cambodia in part, namely with regard to the temporary withdrawal of the GSP preferences for all customs codes that are affecting GMAC members, i.e. the HS codes mentioned in the table in Article 1 subparagraph 1 and all customs HS codes mentioned in the table in Article 1 subparagraph 2, except for HS code 1212 93;










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates the principle of proportionality and the requirement of consistency between the Union’s policies and activities. The Commission allegedly failed to properly assess the proportionality of the partial temporary withdrawal of customs preferences for the Cambodian garments, footwear and travel goods sectors.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s procedural rights due to the Commission’s failure to provide adequate reasoning pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU, corresponding to a violation of the right to good administration.
Case C-97/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Code — Customs declarations — Article 78 of that code — Revision of the customs declaration — Name of the declarant — Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation — Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs formalities, import (EU), import licence, power of attorney








C_2020297EN.01001301.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/13






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln
(Case C-97/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Code - Customs declarations - Article 78 of that code - Revision of the customs declaration - Name of the declarant - Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation - Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)
(2020/C 297/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may grant an application for amendment of a customs declaration seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation between, on the one hand, a person in possession of a power of attorney who has mistakenly indicated that it was acting exclusively in its own name and on its own behalf, even though it has received such a power from the person holding the import licence, and, on the other hand, the person who has granted the power of attorney and on whose behalf the declaration has been made.


(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9866 – United Group/Forthnet) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 234/04
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, mass media, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications, telecommunications industry








C_2020234EN.01000401.xml










16.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9866 – United Group/Forthnet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 234/04)

1.   
On 9 July 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:






—


NEWCO United Group Hellas S.A.R.L. (‘NewCo’, Luxembourg), a wholly owned subsidiary of United Group BV (‘United Group’, Netherlands), which is ultimately solely controlled by BC Partners LLP (‘BC Partners’, United Kingdom),










—


Hellenic Telecommunications and Telematic Applications S.A. (‘Forthnet’, Greece).




United Group, through NewCo, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Forthnet.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for United Group: provider of telecoms and media services in South East Europe, where it operates a multi-play cable and media platform,










—


for Forthnet: telecommunications operator, active in Greece and Cyprus, under the brand ‘NOVA’. It provides fixed telephony, fixed broadband and pay-TV services (both via satellite and internet (through so called ‘over-the-top’ services) to residential, business and institutional customers.






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.9866 – United Group/Forthnet
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 C-253/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (UE) 2015/848 — Article 3 — International jurisdiction — Centre of a debtor’s main interests — Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity — Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence — Rebuttal of the presumption — Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings, jurisdiction, real property, residence








C_2020297EN.01001602.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/16






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA
(Case C-253/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (UE) 2015/848 - Article 3 - International jurisdiction - Centre of a debtor’s main interests - Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity - Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence - Rebuttal of the presumption - Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence)
(2020/C 297/21)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: MH, NI

Defendants: OJ, Novo Banco SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case C-517/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 14 and 34 — Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible — Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance — Consequences)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, administrative procedure, area of freedom, security and justice, asylum seeker, right of asylum








C_2020297EN.01000202.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/2






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-517/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 14 and 34 - Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible - Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance - Consequences)
(2020/C 297/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Milkiyas Addis

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 34 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which failure to comply with the obligation to give an applicant for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision on the basis of Article 33(2)(a) of that directive declaring the application to be inadmissible does not lead to that decision being annulled and the case being remitted to the determining authority, unless that legislation allows the applicant, in the appeal procedure against that decision, to set out in person all of his or her arguments against the decision in a hearing which complies with the applicable conditions and fundamental guarantees set out in Article 15 of that directive, and those arguments are not capable of altering that decision.


(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Case T-36/20: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2020 — IF v Parliament
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European party, Liberal Party, Secretary General of an Institution, competence of the institution, indemnification, interest, legal status, rights of the defence








C_2020348EN.01002703.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/27






Order of the General Court of 16 July 2020 — IF v Parliament
(Case T-36/20) (1)

(2020/C 348/40)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.
Case C-606/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — European market for submarine and underground power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20 — European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings — Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, jurisdiction, market-sharing agreement, powers of the institutions (EU), restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2020297EN.01000602.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/6






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission
(Case C-606/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - European market for submarine and underground power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20 - European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings - Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2020/C 297/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA (represented by: G. Forwood, avocate, M. Powell and A. Rogers, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, P. Rossi, C. Sjödin and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 15 July 2020 2020/C 234/01
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020234EN.01000101.xml










16.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 July 2020
(2020/C 234/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1444 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4465 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90540 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3468 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0783 




ISK


Iceland króna


160,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6275 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,587 




HUF


Hungarian forint


353,25 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4688 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8439 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,8568 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6293 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5527 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8718 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7397 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5884 




KRW


South Korean won


1 373,55 




ZAR


South African rand


18,9061 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9975 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5308 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 693,94 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8780 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,584 




RUB


Russian rouble


81,0468 




THB


Thai baht


36,037 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0911 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,4759 




INR


Indian rupee


85,9710 






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