do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-444/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, staff, strike, trade union, transport regulations, traveller








C_2020433EN.01002301.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company
(Case C-444/20)
(2020/C 433/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred







1.


Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?










2.


Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?










3.


Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?






(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-581/20: Action brought on 21 September 2020 — YP v Commission
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, administrator, alternative dispute resolution, disciplinary proceedings, promotion, rights of the defence








C_2020371EN.01002901.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/29






Action brought on 21 September 2020 — YP v Commission
(Case T-581/20)
(2020/C 371/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: YP (represented by: J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 in the 2019 promotion procedure;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant submits that the Commission did not take into account her extensive language combinations in its consideration of the comparative merits.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant takes issue with the contested decision for having automatically excluded her from the officials eligible for promotion by applying an administrative practice that involves the automatic removal from the promotion list of the names of all staff members who are the subject of an investigation or who have received an administrative or disciplinary penalty. According to the applicant, such a practice breaches the principle of the presumption of innocence.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the settlement agreement of 18 September 2019 entered into in Cases T-562/18, YP v Commission and T-563/18, YP v Commission. The applicant takes the view that that agreement binds the parties and that they are obliged to comply with all of its terms.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that, under that article, a single case of misconduct cannot give rise to more than one disciplinary penalty. While being automatically excluded from the list of officials proposed for promotion and the list of promoted officials does not constitute a disciplinary penalty per se, it is nevertheless a direct consequence of initiating an investigation, disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary sanction.
Case C-456/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit agricole SA v ECB
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, credit institution, equal treatment, financial requirements, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law, sanction (EU)








C_2020433EN.01002601.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/26






Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit agricole SA v ECB
(Case C-456/20 P)
(2020/C 433/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Crédit agricole SA (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought







—


Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit Agricole SA v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of 16 July 2018;










—


Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance before the General Court;










—


Order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that:






(1)


the General Court erred in law in applying the provisions of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and infringed the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty by holding that the appellant had committed a breach in respect of its Pillar 3 disclosures and its COREP statement for the second quarter of 2016;










(2)


the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No 575/2013 while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;










(3)


the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of 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, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;










(4)


the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 September 2020 at 10.30-13.00 (CEST (Central European Summer Time (i.e. Brussels time).)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.40608 – Broadcom Rapporteur: Lithuania (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 81/07
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic component, telecommunications equipment








C_2021081EN.01000701.xml










10.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/7






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 September 2020 at 10.30-13.00 (CEST (1)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.40608 – Broadcom
Rapporteur: Lithuania
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 81/07)

(1)   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its draft Decision under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 7 September 2020.



(2)   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as described in the draft Decision.



(3)   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the offered final commitments are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding, as set out in the draft Decision.



(4)   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision that, in light of the offered commitments, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission as regards the concerns as set out in the draft Decision, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



(5)   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.




(1)  Central European Summer Time (i.e. Brussels time).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9942 – Partners Group/Bridgepoint/Rovensa) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 317/02
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, crop production, economic concentration, fertiliser industry, investment company, merger control








C_2020317EN.01000301.xml










25.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9942 – Partners Group/Bridgepoint/Rovensa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 317/02)
On 21 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 32020M9942. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-446/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-616/19, Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021009EN.01000601.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/6






Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-616/19, Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-446/20 P)
(2021/C 9/09)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium B.V.
By order of 12 November 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1338 of 21 September 2020 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pecorino Siciliano’ (PDO))
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, sheep's milk cheese








L_2020313EN.01000301.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 313/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1338
of 21 September 2020
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pecorino Siciliano’ (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Pecorino Siciliano’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Pecorino Siciliano’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 21 September 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1).

(3)  
            OJ C 170, 18.5.2020, p. 27.
Case C-457/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, credit institution, equal treatment, financial requirements, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU)








C_2020433EN.01002701.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/27






Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB
(Case C-457/20 P)
(2020/C 433/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought







—


Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–577/18, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of 16 July 2018;










—


Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank at first instance before the General Court;










—


Order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the three grounds of appeal, the appellant claims that:






(1)


the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;










(2)


the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of 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, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;










(3)


the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9900 — ZF China/Wolong/Wolong ZF Automotive Electric Motors JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 319/01
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric machinery, electricity storage device, merger control, motor vehicle industry, solar collector, vehicle parts








C_2020319EN.01000101.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9900 — ZF China/Wolong/Wolong ZF Automotive Electric Motors JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 319/01)
On 21 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 32020M9900. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-445/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — PN and LM v Ryanair Designated Activity Company
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, staff, strike, trade union, transport regulations, traveller








C_2020433EN.01002401.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — PN and LM v Ryanair Designated Activity Company
(Case C-445/20)
(2020/C 433/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PN, LM

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred







1.


Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?










2.


Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?










3.


Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?






(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9909 — ISTA International/Aareal Bank/Objego) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 412/04
Date: 2020-09-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology, measuring equipment, merger control, provision of services, real estate business, software








C_2020412EN.01000401.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9909 — ISTA International/Aareal Bank/Objego)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 412/04)
On 21 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 German language 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 32020M9909. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.