do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-356/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Compensation procedure — Claim expressed in national currency — National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, national currency, residence, traveller








C_2020378EN.01001201.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/12






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.
(Case C-356/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Compensation procedure - Claim expressed in national currency - National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency)
(2020/C 378/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights have been cancelled or subject to a long delay or their legal successors may demand payment of the amount of the compensation referred to in that provision in the national currency of their place of residence, so that that provision precludes a Member State’s legislation or case-law which results in the dismissal of an action brought for that purpose by such passengers or their legal successors on the sole ground that the claim was expressed in that national currency.


(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Case C-412/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, enforcement of ruling, independence of the judiciary, right to justice








C_2020378EN.01002001.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-412/20)
(2020/C 378/24)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


European arrest warrant issued against: P

Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and/or the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union indeed preclude an executing judicial authority from executing an EAW issued by a court in the case where that court does not meet the requirements of effective judicial protection/actual judicial protection, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer met those requirements, because the legislation in the issuing Member State does not guarantee the independence of that court, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer guaranteed that independence?


(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-417/20: Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) of 3 September 2020 — Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, postal and telecommunications services








C_2020414EN.01002201.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/22






Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) of 3 September 2020 — Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE
(Case C-417/20)
(2020/C 414/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring Court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc.

Defendants: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE
By order of 8 October 2020, the President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Case C-611/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Crewprint Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality — Right to VAT deduction — Refusal — Fraud — Proof — Chain of subcontractors)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business activity, commercial transaction, subcontracting, tax evasion, tax relief, taxpayer, works contract








C_2020414EN.01001801.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/18






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Crewprint Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-611/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality - Right to VAT deduction - Refusal - Fraud - Proof - Chain of subcontractors)
(2020/C 414/22)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Crewprint Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct input value added tax on the ground that the conduct of that taxable person and of the issuer of the invoices amounts to fraud because, first, their contracts were not necessary for the performance of the economic transactions in question and could be legally classified other than how the parties did so, secondly, that issuer has had recourse, without it being necessary or economically rational, to a chain of subcontractors, some of which did not have the necessary personnel and material resources and, thirdly, that taxable person had personal or organisational links with that issuer as well as with one of those subcontractors. In order to provide a basis for such a refusal, it must be established, other than by assumptions based on pre-established criteria, that that same taxable person actively participated in fraud or that that taxable person knew or should have known that those transactions were connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoices, which is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 September 2020 2020/C 292/02
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020292EN.01000201.xml










3.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

2 September 2020
(2020/C 292/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1861 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,00 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4412 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88840 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3065 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0799 




ISK


Iceland króna


164,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4060 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,338 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,77 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4186 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8423 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,7588 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6171 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5495 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1925 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7541 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6153 




KRW


South Korean won


1 408,07 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9154 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0976 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5335 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 489,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9176 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,665 




RUB


Russian rouble


88,0675 




THB


Thai baht


37,095 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4205 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,9150 




INR


Indian rupee


86,8225 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-784/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung v European Commission (Appeal — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) — Internal review of administrative acts — Limitation to measures of individual application — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 — Extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ — Application for internal review — Measure of general application — Dismissal)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, herbicide, market approval, plant health control








C_2020378EN.01000402.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung v European Commission
(Case T-784/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) - Internal review of administrative acts - Limitation to measures of individual application - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 - Extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Application for internal review - Measure of general application - Dismissal)
(2020/C 378/05)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (represented by: A. Willand, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Bayer Agriculture BVBA (represented by: H. Berger, A. Burghardt, J. Wauters, Rechtsanwälte, and G. Forwood, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bayer Agriculture BVBA and by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Decision No 2020/7 of the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community on the designation of the Independent External Auditor for carrying out the annual audit for the Fiscal Year 2019 [2023/557]
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community
Subjects: Western Balkans, accountant, agreement (EU), audit, auditing, common transport policy, financial year, joint body (EU), multilateral agreement








L_2023073EN.01004401.xml










10.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 73/44








            DECISION No 2020/7 OF THE REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMUNITY
         
on the designation of the Independent External Auditor for carrying out the annual audit for the Fiscal Year 2019 [2023/557]


THE REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMUNITY,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Transport Community, and in particular Article 24(1) and Article 36 thereof,


Having regard to the financial rules and auditing procedures applicable to the Transport Community, and in particular Articles 62 and 63 thereof,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:



Article 1
Grant Thornton D.O.O. with the address: Kneginje Zorke 2/4 Belgrade, is designated as the Independent External Auditor for carrying out the annual audit for the Fiscal Year 2019 of the Transport Community.




Done in Sarajevo, 3 September 2020.


For the Regional Steering Committee


The President
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9864 — CPPIB/KKR/Axel Springer) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 415/07
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, mass media, merger control








C_2020415EN.01001401.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/14






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9864 — CPPIB/KKR/Axel Springer)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 415/07)
On 3 September 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 32020M9864. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-98/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — mBank S.A. v PA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled — Article 18(2) — Proceedings brought against the consumer by the seller or supplier — Concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ — Relevant time for determining the consumer’s domicile — Transfer of the consumer’s domicile after the conclusion of the contract and before the action is brought)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence








C_2020414EN.01001901.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/19






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — mBank S.A. v PA
(Case C-98/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled - Article 18(2) - Proceedings brought against the consumer by the seller or supplier - Concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ - Relevant time for determining the consumer’s domicile - Transfer of the consumer’s domicile after the conclusion of the contract and before the action is brought)
(2020/C 414/24)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: mBank S.A.

Defendant: PA

Operative part of the order

The concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ referred to in Article 18(2) 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 designating the consumer’s domicile at the date on which the court action is brought.


(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Case C-742/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Czech Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 — Articles 19 and 77 — Wine market — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 33 — Support for rural development — Area-related aid — Decoupled direct aid — Cross-compliance checks — Traditional on-the-spot checks and on-the-spot checks by remote sensing — Burden of proof — One-off and flat-rate corrections — Doubts concerning the effectiveness of the checks — Risk analysis — Deficiencies)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, reimbursement of aid, rural development, single payment scheme, wine








C_2020378EN.01000401.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Czech Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-742/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 - Articles 19 and 77 - Wine market - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 33 - Support for rural development - Area-related aid - Decoupled direct aid - Cross-compliance checks - Traditional on-the-spot checks and on-the-spot checks by remote sensing - Burden of proof - One-off and flat-rate corrections - Doubts concerning the effectiveness of the checks - Risk analysis - Deficiencies)
(2020/C 378/04)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, K. Walkerová and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission (T-627/16, not published, EU:T:2018:538), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the plea in law concerning the one-off correction of EUR 462 517,83 in respect of the financial years 2013 to 2015, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to deficiencies in the risk analysis, and the plea in law concerning a flat-rate correction of EUR 636 516,20, in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to insufficient on-the-spot checks so far as investments financed in the wine sector are concerned;










2.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










3.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Case C-214/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Distinctive character — None)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, provision of services, publishing, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020378EN.01001001.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-214/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Distinctive character - None)
(2020/C 378/11)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: achtung! GmbH (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders achtung! GmbH to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9922 — GHO/MIC/Envision) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 415/08
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, health care, investment company, merger control, software








C_2020415EN.01001501.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/15






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9922 — GHO/MIC/Envision)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 415/08)
On 3 September 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 32020M9922. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.