do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-357/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 31 July 2020 — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, protected area, protection of animals








C_2020359EN.01000501.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 31 July 2020 — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien
(Case C-357/20)
(2020/C 359/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IE

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Questions referred







1.


How is the term ‘breeding site’ within the meaning of Article [12(1)(d)] of the Habitats Directive (1) to be understood, and how is a ‘breeding site’ to be differentiated spatially from other locations?










2.


Which factors determine whether, and, if so, for how long, the existence of a breeding site is limited in time?










3.


Which factors determine whether deterioration or destruction of a breeding site has been caused by a particular act or omission?










4.


Which factors determine whether a ‘resting place’ within the meaning of Article [12(1)(d)] of the Habitats Directive has been caused to deteriorate or to be destroyed?






(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) as last amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9779 — Alstom/Bombardier Transportation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 61/04
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, rail transport, service








C_2021061EN.01000401.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9779 — Alstom/Bombardier Transportation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 61/04)
On 31 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32020M9779. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya 2020/C 251/06
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2020251EN.01000901.xml










31.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/9






Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
(2020/C 251/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1137 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) 2016/44, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 15 May 2021, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C.




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




Belgique/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 17(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and Article 21(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44, of the list of designated persons and entities.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(2)  OJ L 247, 31.7.2020, p. 40.

(3)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 247, 31.7.2020, p. 14.
Case T-272/19: Order of the General Court of 31 July 2020 –TO v EEAS (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Refusal to employ on the ground that the candidate is unfit to perform duties — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Public policy — Delay — Calculation of the time limit — Determination of the date from which the person concerned could have become aware of the content of the decision — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, data protection, equal treatment, indemnification, personal data, principle of proportionality, professional qualifications, psychological harassment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2020371EN.01001202.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/12






Order of the General Court of 31 July 2020 –TO v EEAS
(Case T-272/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Refusal to employ on the ground that the candidate is unfit to perform duties - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Public policy - Delay - Calculation of the time limit - Determination of the date from which the person concerned could have become aware of the content of the decision - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 371/12)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the EEAS decision of 15 June 2018 informing the applicant that she did not fulfil all of the conditions of employment laid down in Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and that she could not be recruited as a member of the contract staff of the EEAS and, second, of the decision of the EEAS of 14 January 2019 rejecting her complaint of 14 September 2018, and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.










2.


TO shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-356/20 P: Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2020 in Case T-83/19 AL v Commission
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European civil service, appointment of members, appointment of staff, indemnification, international cooperation, international organisation, the EU's international role








C_2021128EN.01000502.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/5






Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2020 in Case T-83/19 AL v Commission
(Case C-356/20 P)
(2021/C 128/06)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: AL (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By Order of 10 December 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 July 2020 2020/C 251/12
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020251EN.01001501.xml










31.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/15






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 July 2020
(2020/C 251/12)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1743 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,58 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4426 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90268 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3068 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0744 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,7213 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,248 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4080 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8318 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,1978 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6446 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5771 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1011 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7727 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6161 




KRW


South Korean won


1 404,16 




ZAR


South African rand


19,7070 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2240 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4880 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 144,78 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9784 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,682 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,6233 




THB


Thai baht


36,920 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1189 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0101 




INR


Indian rupee


87,9400 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-352/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 31 July 2020 — HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt. v Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: investment company, investment income, share, shareholder, shareholding








C_2020423EN.01001701.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 31 July 2020 — HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt. v Magyar Nemzeti Bank
(Case C-352/20)
(2020/C 423/24)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt.

Defendant: Magyar Nemzeti Bank

Question referred

Do dividends distributed to the persons concerned






(a)


directly by virtue of their status as holders of preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in the investment fund manager, and










(b)


through single-member companies owned by the directors concerned, which hold preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in that fund manager
remain subject to the remuneration policies of investment fund managers?
Case C-353/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de l’Entreprise du Hainaut, division de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 31 July 2020 — Skeyes v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, air safety, air space, air traffic, competition policy, provision of services








C_2020339EN.01000801.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de l’Entreprise du Hainaut, division de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 31 July 2020 — Skeyes v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
(Case C-353/20)
(2020/C 339/10)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de l’Entreprise du Hainaut, division de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skeyes

Defendant: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred







1.


Must Regulation No 550/2004, (1) in particular Article 8 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that it authorises the Member States to remove from review by the courts of that Member State any alleged failures to fulfil the obligation to provide services by the air traffic services provider, or must the provisions of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that they require the Member States to provide an effective remedy against any such alleged breaches, account being taken of the nature of the services to be provided?










2.


Must Regulation No 550/2004, inasmuch as it states that ‘the provision of air traffic services, as envisaged by this Regulation, is connected with the exercise of the powers of a public authority, which are not of an economic nature justifying the application of the Treaty rules on competition’, be interpreted as excluding not only the rules on competition per se, but also any other rules applicable to public undertakings active on a market for goods and services which have an indirect effect on competition, such as those prohibiting hindrances to the freedom to conduct business and to provide services?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 96, p. 10).
Case T-483/20: Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Tecnica Group v EUIPO — Zeitneu (Shape of a boot)
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020320EN.01002402.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/24






Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Tecnica Group v EUIPO — Zeitneu (Shape of a boot)
(Case T-483/20)
(2020/C 320/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tecnica Group SpA (Giavera del Montello, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zeitneu GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a boot) — European Union trade mark No 10 168 441

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2020 in Case R 1093/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the principle of res judicata under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principles of legality, equal treatment and sound administration under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 127 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Mobility Package I on road transport – Declaration by the Commission 2020/C 252/01
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, combined transport, drivers, pollution control measures, road transport, speed control, working conditions








C_2020252EN.01000101.xml










31.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/1






Mobility Package I on road transport – Declaration by the Commission
(2020/C 252/01)
The Commission takes note of the adoption of the social and market pillars of Mobility Package I by the Council and European Parliament on 15 July 2020 (1).
The social improvements in this proposal are significant. The Commission regrets however that the agreement reached by the Council and European Parliament includes elements that are not in line with the ambitions of the European Green Deal and the EUCO endorsement of the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050. These are the compulsory return of the vehicle to the Member State of establishment every 8 weeks and the restrictions imposed on combined transport operations. These measures were not part of the Commission’s proposals adopted on 31 May 2017 and have not been the subject of an impact assessment. The obligation of return of the truck will lead to inefficiencies in the transport system and an increase in unnecessary emissions, pollution and congestion, while the restrictions on combined transport diminish its effectiveness to support multimodal freight operations.
The Commission will now closely assess the climate, environmental, and single market functioning impact of these two aspects. The Commission will do so in view of the Green Deal and measures to decarbonise transport and protect the environment, whilst ensuring a well-functioning Single Market.
After impact assessment, the Commission, if necessary, will exercise its right to come forward with a targeted legislative proposal before the two provisions enter into force.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 1.)
Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 17.).
Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49.).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9889 – ERGO/SDHS/Taishan Property & Casualty Insurance) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 263/02
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, inland waterway transport, insurance, investment company, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2020263EN.01000201.xml










11.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9889 – ERGO/SDHS/Taishan Property & Casualty Insurance)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 263/02)
On 31 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 32020M9889. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.