do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1082 of 22 July 2020 amending for the 315th 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
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism








L_2020238EN.01008201.xml










23.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 238/82








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1082
of 22 July 2020
         
amending for the 315th 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


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 16 July 2020, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add an entry to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.












(3)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective it should enter into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 22 July 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Director-General


Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




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


            ‘Noor Wali Mehsud (good quality alias Abu Mansoor Asim). Title: Mufti. Date of birth: 26.6.1978. Place of birth: Gurguray, Pakistan. Nationality: Pakistan. Other information: Leader of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 16.7.2020.’
Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a contracting entity – Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 242/06
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Lithuania, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, wholesale trade








C_2020242EN.01002301.xml










22.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/23






Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a contracting entity – Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 242/06)
On 8 April 2019 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).
This request, made by Lietuvos energija UAB, concerns production and wholesale of electricity in Lithuania. The relevant notices were published on page 28 of OJ C 316 of 20 September 2019 and on page 9 of OJ C 53 of 17 February 2020 and on page 27 of OJ C 202 of 16 June 2020. The prolonged deadline was 10 July 2020.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption concerned. Given the current context and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemics, and with the agreement of Lietuvos energija UAB (now Ignitis), the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended until 31 July 2020.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case T-465/20: Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, company in difficulties, control of State aid, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, infectious disease, low cost airline, right of establishment








C_2020287EN.01004602.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/46






Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-465/20)
(2020/C 287/68)
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 10 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57369 (2020/N) COVID-19 — Portugal — Aid to TAP (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.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the aid falls within the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (R&R Guidelines). (2)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure.










5.


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






(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 10 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57369 (2020/N) COVID-19 — Portugal — Aid to TAP (OJ 2020 C 228, p. 1)

(2)  Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ 2014, C 249, p. 1)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9880 – Permira/Warburg/Tilney/Smith & Williamson) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 248/01
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2020248EN.01000101.xml










28.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9880 – Permira/Warburg/Tilney/Smith & Williamson)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 248/01)
On 22 July 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9880. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU –End of the suspension and extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 242/04
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, award of contract, carriage of goods, rail transport








C_2020242EN.01002101.xml










22.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/21






Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU –End of the suspension and extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 242/04)
On 19 September 2019 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).
This request, made by Slovenske železnice – Freight Transport d.o.o., concerns railway freight services. The relevant notices was published on page number 10 of OJ C 53 of 17 February 2020.
On 16 December 2019 the Commission asked the national authorities to provide additional information by 6 January 2020 at the latest. As announced in the notice that was published on page number 2 of OJ C 211 of 25 June 2020, the final deadline was prolonged by 22 working days after the receipt of the complete and correct information. Complete and correct information was received on 25 May 2020.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption concerned. Given the current context and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemics, and with the agreement of Slovenske železnice – Freight Transport d.o.o, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended until 24 July 2020.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 21 July 2020 2020/C 242/02
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020242EN.01001801.xml










22.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/18






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 July 2020
(2020/C 242/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1443 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4449 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90055 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2390 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0740 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4933 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,429 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,64 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4362 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8392 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,8369 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6154 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5399 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8704 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7305 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5891 




KRW


South Korean won


1 367,96 




ZAR


South African rand


18,8806 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9982 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5300 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 830,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8764 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,455 




RUB


Russian rouble


81,0833 




THB


Thai baht


36,194 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0416 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,5910 




INR


Indian rupee


85,3805 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-325/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, provision of services, right of establishment, trade licence








C_2020339EN.01000201.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales
(Case C-325/20)
(2020/C 339/02)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Conseil national des centres commerciaux

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

Question referred

Must Article 14(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) be interpreted as meaning that it permits the presence, on a collegiate body responsible for issuing an opinion on the granting of a commercial operating permit, of a recognised expert describing the local economic fabric, whose role is limited to merely presenting the situation of the economic fabric in the relevant catchment area and the impact of the project on that economic fabric, without taking part in the vote on the permit application?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.
Case C-329/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Raiffeisen Bank International AG v UI and MB
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dominant position, exchange rate, foreign currency, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2021148EN.01000501.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Raiffeisen Bank International AG v UI and MB
(Case C-329/20)
(2021/C 148/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raiffeisen Bank International AG

Defendants: UI and MB
By order of 11 February 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.
Case C-324/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Finanzamt B v X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, payment, provision of services, service, tax collection, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2020313EN.01001601.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Finanzamt B v X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-324/20)
(2020/C 313/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt B

Defendant: X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a service provided on a single occasion and therefore not in relation to a certain period of time give rise to successive statements of account or successive payments within the meaning of Article 64(1) of the VAT Directive (1) merely on the basis of an agreement to pay in instalments?










2.


Alternatively, if the first question is answered in the negative: Is non-payment within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive to be assumed if the taxable person, when providing his service, agrees that the service is to be paid for in five annual instalments and the national law relating to cases of subsequent payment provides for an adjustment by which the previous reduction in the taxable amount is cancelled again in accordance with that article?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-331/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2020 by Volotea, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-607/17, Volotea v Commission
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, airline, airport, control of State aid, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition, right to justice, services of general interest








C_2020297EN.01003701.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/37






Appeal brought on 22 July 2020 by Volotea, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-607/17, Volotea v Commission
(Case C-331/20 P)
(2020/C 297/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Volotea, SA (represented by: M. Carpagnano, avvocato, M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;










—


annul in part Article 1 (2), (3) (4) and the recovery of the decision by the Commission (1) of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA.33983 implemented by Italy for compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations insofar as it concerns the appellant.




In the alternative:






—


set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court.




Furthermore, the appellant claims that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in the application of the notion of State aid under 107(1) TFEU. More specifically, the Court misapplied the notion of economic advantage, exceeded its jurisdiction by replacing the European Commission’s reasoning, and misjudged the criteria of selectivity, State resources and distortion of competition.
The General Court erred in justification of State aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and Community Guidelines on Financing of Airports and Start-Up Aid to Airlines Departing From Regional Airports.
The General Court failed to take into account the principle of legitimate expectations in its recovery order; erred in acknowledging a violation of Article 296 (2) TFEU due to lack of adequate reasoning of the European Commission and violated the appellant`s right to effective remedy.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017, L 268, p. 1).
Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a contracting entity – Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 242/05
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, renewable energy, renewable resources, wholesale trade








C_2020242EN.01002201.xml










22.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/22






Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a contracting entity – Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 242/05)
On 3 December 2019 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).
This request is made by ENEL Green Power and concerns activities relating to the generation and wholesale of electricity from renewable sources in Italy. The relevant notice was published on page 45 of OJ C 196 of 11 June 2020. The prolonged deadline was 15 July 2020.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption concerned. Given the current context and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemics, and with the agreement of ENEL Green Power, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended until 31 July 2020.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case C-326/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 22 July 2020 — SIA MONO v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: diplomatic representation, electronic money, excise duty, goods and services, payment, tax exemption, tax law








C_2020329EN.01000502.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 22 July 2020 — SIA MONO v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-326/20)
(2020/C 329/07)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and appellant on appeal: SIA MONO

Defendant and appellant on appeal: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that excise goods intended to be used in the context of diplomatic or consular relations are to be exempted from excise duty on the condition that payment for the goods in question is to be made by non-cash means, that payment has actually been made, and that the payment to the supplier was made by the actual recipients of the goods?










2.


Must Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that Member States may lay down conditions and limitations which, in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, make the exemption from duty for excise goods subject to the requirement that the purchaser of the goods has actually paid for the goods by non-cash means?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.