do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 July 2020 2020/C 246/01
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020246EN.01000101.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 July 2020
(2020/C 246/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1608 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,36 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4438 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90985 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2690 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0730 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6953 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,268 




HUF


Hungarian forint


346,98 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4046 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8325 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,9496 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6376 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5578 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9978 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7506 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6083 




KRW


South Korean won


1 396,83 




ZAR


South African rand


19,4350 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1453 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5170 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 982,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9502 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,316 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,3938 




THB


Thai baht


36,821 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0777 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0804 




INR


Indian rupee


86,8660 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-220/20 (OJ C 201, 15.6.2020)
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European civil service, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020247EN.01004901.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/49






Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-220/20
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 201 of 15 June 2020
)
(2020/C 247/67)
The notice in the OJ in Case T-220/20, JL v
Commission should read:


‘Action brought on 16 April 2020 — Kerstens v Commission
(Case T-220/20)
(2020/C 201/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (La Forclaz, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of 11 July 2019 of the European Commission (appointing authority) issuing a warning to the applicant;










—


annul the decision of 27 March 2017 of the European Commission (appointing authority) to resume the case [confidential]; (1)











—


award the applicant compensation amounting to EUR 30 000, by way of special non-material damages, to be paid by the European Commission;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, that is to say, inappropriate measures for enforcement of the annulment judgment of the General Court, and infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem.












2.


Second plea in law alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, infringement of the principle of sound administration including the obligation to treat cases fairly and impartially, infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence, and a breach of the rights of the defence.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, infringement of the procedural rules applicable to administrative inquiries and disciplinary proceedings and infringement of the obligation to state reasons.












4.


Fourth plea in law, a request for special compensation on account of the abovementioned irregularities.’








(1)  Confidential data removed.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/740 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other parameters, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 (Official Journal of the European Union L 177 of 5 June 2020)
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: European standard, consumer information, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental protection, labelling, motor fuel, pneumatic tyre




L_2020241EN.01004601.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 241/46







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/740 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other parameters, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 177 of 5 June 2020
)


On page 15, Annex I, part C:
for:





read:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9736 — Lone Star/BASF Construction Chemicals (EB) business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 335/04
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020335EN.01000501.xml










9.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9736 — Lone Star/BASF Construction Chemicals (EB) business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 335/04)
On 27 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 32020M9736. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-345/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative cooperation, data transmission, directory, disclosure of information, infringement of EU law, road transport, transport company








C_2020329EN.01000701.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/7






Action brought on 27 July 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-345/20)
(2020/C 329/09)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


declare that, in failing to carry out the interconnection of its national electronic register to the new version of the European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480 of 1 April 2016 establishing common rules concerning the interconnection of national electronic registers on road transport undertakings and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1213/2010; (1)











—


order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.





Plea in law and main arguments

The interconnection of national electronic registers to the new version of the ERRU, which the Member States are required to carry out in accordance with the procedures and technical requirements laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480, as required under Article 3 of that regulation, was to have taken place by no later than 30 January 2019.


(1)  OJ 2016 L 87, p. 4.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9790 — Blackstone/KP1) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 398/05
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020398EN.01000501.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9790 — Blackstone/KP1)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 398/05)
On 27 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 32020M9790. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-482/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — LG and Others v Commission
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Convention on Human Rights, confidentiality, fraud against the EU, professional secret, protection of communications, public legal official, rights of the defence








C_2020348EN.01002202.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/22






Action brought on 27 July 2020 — LG and Others v Commission
(Case T-482/20)
(2020/C 348/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: LG and five other applicants (represented by: A. Sigal and M. Teder, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul, under Article 263 TFEU, a tacit decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 26 May 2020, rejecting the applicants’ claim for legal professional privilege with regard to communications between the applicants and their outside legal counsel, unless the applicants explain the context and content of such privileged communications;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ right to legal professional privilege is a fundamental, though unwritten, right under EU law, as recognised in the case law of the Court of Justice. The exercise of this right cannot, it is argued, be conditional upon the applicants showing that their privileged communications have a substantive connection to the very investigation in which they are privileged; this would defeat the purpose of legal professional privilege.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ right to legal professional privilege stems separately from the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR (Article 7 of the Charter) and the right to defence under Article 6 of the ECHR (Article 47 of the Charter). The protection of legal professional privilege under the ECHR and the Charter does not depend, it is argued, on the purpose and content of the relevant communications, but only on the identity of their participants.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, even if the right to legal professional privilege under the ECHR and the Charter can be constrained for the benefit of a public good, such constraints must take the form of a law. They cannot, it is argued, be based on a discretionary decision of an administrative author.
DRAFT Union's annual budget for the financial year 2021 - General Introduction - General statement of expenditure - General statement of revenue - Statement of revenue and expenditure by section
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.7.2020  COM(2020) 300 final  DRAFT Union's annual budget for the financial year 2021  - General Introduction   - General statement of expenditure   - General statement of revenue   - Statement of revenue and expenditure by section  
 
 
DOCUMENTS 
DRAFT Union’s annual budget for the 
financial year 2021 

—   General introduction 

—   General statement of expenditure 

—   General statement of revenue 

—   Statement of revenue and expenditure by section:  

—   Section 1:   European Parliament 

—    Section 2:   European Council and Council 

—    Section 3:   European Commission 

—    Section 4:   Court of Justice of the European Union 

—    Section 5:   Court of Auditors 

—    Section 6:   European Economic and Social Committee 

—    Section 7:   Committee of the Regions 

—    Section 8:   European Ombudsman 

—    Section 9:   European Data Protection Supervisor 

—    Section 10: European External Action Service  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm
Special Report No 17/2020 ‘Trade defence instruments: system for protecting EU businesses from dumped and subsidised imports functions well’ 2020/C 246/02
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: aid to undertakings, anti-dumping legislation, anti-subsidy proceeding, dumping, export subsidy, import (EU), market protection, protectionism, trade restriction








C_2020246EN.01000201.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/2






Special Report No 17/2020
‘Trade defence instruments: system for protecting EU businesses from dumped and subsidised imports functions well’
(2020/C 246/02)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 17/2020
‘Trade defence instruments: system for protecting EU businesses from dumped and subsidised imports functions well’ 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-476/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Alteryx v EUIPO — Allocate Software (ALLOCATE)
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic device, recording equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020313EN.01003101.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/31






Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Alteryx v EUIPO — Allocate Software (ALLOCATE)
(Case T-476/20)
(2020/C 313/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alteryx, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. Holah, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allocate Software Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ALLOCATE — European Union trade mark No 6 740 658

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2020 in Case R 1709/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the Cancellation Division decision;










—


order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal;










—


in the event that the other party participates in the proceedings as intervener, order it to bear his own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in connection with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council insofar as the Board of Appeal failed to state the reasons on which the decision is based.
Case T-494/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, banking supervision, financial supervision, ownership, right to justice








C_2020371EN.01001602.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/16






Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB
(Case T-494/20)
(2020/C 371/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision dated 15 May 2020 by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision and give instructions to the Competent Person so as to ensure that the Bank is no longer denied access to its offices, information, systems, files, documents, staff and resources;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested action is beyond the competence of the ECB and also did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligations pursuant to Art. 6(5)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Article 67 of the Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) of the European Central Bank.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle that the ECB has to act in a manner that makes compliance with regulatory obligations possible.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed an abuse of power (détournement de pouvoir).






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9855 – Onex/Independant Clinical Services) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 250/02
Date: 2020-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU investment, economic concentration, employment service, health service, life sciences, merger control, service, social services








C_2020250EN.01000201.xml










30.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9855 – Onex/Independant Clinical Services)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 250/02)
On 27 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 32020M9855. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.