do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-827/19: Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 4 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra — Spain) — D.A.T.A., L.F.A., A.M.A.G., L.F.A., J.G.C., S.C.C., A.C.V., A.A.G., A.C.A., L.C.A., N.P.B., P.C.A. v Ryanair D.A.C.
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller, working conditions








C_2020414EN.01002601.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/26






Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 4 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra — Spain) — D.A.T.A., L.F.A., A.M.A.G., L.F.A., J.G.C., S.C.C., A.C.V., A.A.G., A.C.A., L.C.A., N.P.B., P.C.A. v Ryanair D.A.C.
(Case C-827/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/39)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 September 2020 2020/C 293/02
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020293EN.01000201.xml










4.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 September 2020
(2020/C 293/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1813 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,85 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4401 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89135 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3393 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0776 




ISK


Iceland króna


164,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5315 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,368 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,05 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4269 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8473 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,7907 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6219 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5491 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1555 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7579 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6131 




KRW


South Korean won


1 406,65 




ZAR


South African rand


19,8058 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0802 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5355 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 536,99 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8994 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,389 




RUB


Russian rouble


88,9825 




THB


Thai baht


37,140 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3424 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,7175 




INR


Indian rupee


86,8615 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-568/20: Action brought on 4 September 2020 — MF v eu-LISA
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, termination of employment, work contract








C_2020399EN.01003901.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/39






Action brought on 4 September 2020 — MF v eu-LISA
(Case T-568/20)
(2020/C 399/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MF (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 29 October 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract on the basis that a security clearance could not be issued to him — as such and insofar as it would also contain a decision to refuse access to EUCI;










—


insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the termination decision is illegal as a consequence of a violation by the defendant of Article 11(5)(b) of Commission decision and of the eu-LISA security Rules.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9909 – ISTA International/Aareal Bank/Objego) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 293/04
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology, measuring equipment, merger control, provision of services, real estate business, software








C_2020293EN.01000401.xml










4.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9909 – ISTA International/Aareal Bank/Objego)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 293/04)

1.   
On 26 August 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:






—


ISTA International GmbH (‘ISTA International’, Germany), controlled by CK Hutchison Holdings Limited and CK Assets Holdings Limited (both Hong Kong/Cayman Islands),










—


Aareal Bank AG (‘Aareal Bank’, Germany),










—


Objego GmbH (‘Objego’, Germany), controlled by ISTA International.




ISTA International and Aareal Bank acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Objego.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


ISTA International: submetering and related services in Germany, France and Denmark,










—


Aareal Bank: real estate financing and related services along with software solutions for real estate undertakings,










—


Objego: development and operation of a digital platform providing and arranging services in the real estate and energy sectors and related service sectors.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.9909 – ISTA International/Aareal Bank/Objego
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-414/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2020 — Criminal proceedings against MM
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, criminal proceedings, enforcement of ruling, judicial review, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2020390EN.01002201.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2020 — Criminal proceedings against MM
(Case C-414/20)
(2020/C 390/31)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

MM

Questions referred

Is a national law which provides that the European arrest warrant and the national decision on the basis of which that warrant has been issued are to be adopted only by the public prosecutor, and does not permit the court to participate in or to exercise prior or subsequent review, consistent with Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584?
Is a European arrest warrant which has been issued on the basis of the order for the requested person to be put under investigation, and that order does not involve his detention, consistent with Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584?
If the answer is in the negative: if, where a court has not participated in the issue of the European arrest warrant, or in the review of its legality and that warrant has been issued on the basis of a national decision which does not provide for the detention of the requested person, that European arrest warrant is in fact executed and the requested person is surrendered, should the requested person be granted an effective remedy in the same criminal proceedings as those during which that European arrest warrant was issued? Should the effective remedy involve placing the requested person in the situation in which he would have been if the infringement had not taken place?
Corrigendum to Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Official Journal of the European Union C 336 of 7 October 2019) 2020/C 293/06
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Little Poland province, Poland, consumer information, designation of origin, honey, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products








C_2020293EN.01001601.xml










4.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/16






Corrigendum to Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 336 of 7 October 2019
)

(2020/C 293/06)
On page 8, point 3.2, in the section ‘Microbiological characteristics’:
for:

‘Capnophialophorapinophila and Triposporiumpinophilum’,

read:

‘Capnophialophora pinophila and Triposporium pinophilum’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9920 – EQT/TA Associates/IFS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 301/02
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2020301EN.01000401.xml










11.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9920 – EQT/TA Associates/IFS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 301/02)
On 4 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 32020M9920. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision of 4 September 2020 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 2020/C 298 I/01
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU), own resources




CI2020298EN.01000101.xml










8.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 298/1






COUNCIL DECISION
of 4 September 2020
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2020
(2020/C 298 I/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2020 was definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2),










—


on 6 July 2020, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 7 to the general budget for the financial year 2020,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article
The Council's position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 was adopted on 4 September 2020.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/


Done at Brussels, 4 September 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH




(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 57, 27.2.2020, p. 1.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 293/03
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: adjuvant, chemical compound, chemical product, chromium, corrosion, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, sodium








C_2020293EN.01000301.xml










4.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/3






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)


(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 293/03)

Decision granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision





C(2020) 5826 final




28 August 2020



Sodium dichromate
EC No 234-190-3, CAS No 7789-12-0, 10588-01-9


Società Chimica Bussi S.p.A.
Piazzale Elettrochimica 1, 65022 Bussi sul Tirino, Italy.


REACH/20/16/0


Additive for suppressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacturing of sodium chlorite


12 years from the date of adoption of this Decision


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case T-550/20: Action brought on 04 September 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Date: 2020-09-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, appointment of members, independence of the judiciary, member of the Court of Justice (EU), principle of proportionality, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020348EN.01002601.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/26






Action brought on 04 September 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
(Case T-550/20)
(2020/C 348/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law and J. Flynn, QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States appointing three Judges and an Advocate General to the Court of Justice of the European Union, dated 2 September 2020, in so far as it purports to appoint Mr Anathasios Rantos as Advocate General of the Court of Justice with effect from 7 September 2020;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 50(3) TEU. It is argued that neither that Article nor any other provision of EU primary law produced or required the automatic termination of the applicant’s mandate as Advocate General, which expires on 6 October 2021. There was accordingly no vacant post to which Mr. Rantos could lawfully be appointed.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the constitutional principle in EU law of the independence of the judiciary. By taking a position on what it knew to be a contested and controversial question relating to the mandate of a serving member of the Court of Justice, the contested decision bypasses the safeguards put in place by EU primary law (in particular in Title I of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union) in order peremptorily to remove that member of the Court of Justice from office.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging lack of proportionality and the absence of ‘legitimate and compelling grounds’. Neither the terms of the Treaties nor the functions of an Advocate General involve any continuing connection with any Member State after their appointment. Any termination of her mandate would therefore be disproportionate and fail to provide the ‘legitimate and compelling grounds’ that the case law requires for interference with the mandate of a serving member of the Court of Justice.