do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-587/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, Romania, harassment at work, indemnification, information profession, medical data, reassignment, rights of the defence, staff assessment, translation








C_2020433EN.01005502.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/55






Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council
(Case T-587/20)
(2020/C 433/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 November 2019 to reassign MO to the Romanian language translation unit;










—


annul the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report;










—


declare the conduct of the administration towards her since 2016 unlawful and order the defendant to pay EUR 277 371,36 for the harm suffered;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleges infringement of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials. This plea is divided into two parts.






—


First part, alleging that the reassignment decision respects neither the interests of the service, the interests of the applicant nor the principle of equivalence of posts;










—


Second part, alleging failure to observe the right to be heard prior to the adoption of the decision to reassign her.














2.


Second plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. This plea is divided into two parts.






—


First part, alleging breach of the right to a prior hearing in not communicating to the applicant the elements allowing her to defend herself properly;










—


Second part, alleging errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment vitiating the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report.














3.


Third plea in law, concerning the compensation of the harm assessed, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the procedure, at EUR 277 371,36, and alleging unlawful conduct and decisions on the part of the Council. This plea is divided into five parts.






—


First part, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the administration during and after the administrative inquiry into acts of harassment towards the applicant;










—


Second part, alleging that the reassignment decision behind the harm for which the applicant is seeking compensation is unlawful;










—


Third part, alleging that the applicant was not attested in the 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations;










—


Fourth part, alleging breach of the applicant’s medical data;










—


Fifth part, alleging that the 2019 appraisal exercise was unlawful.
Case C-463/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Namur-Est Environnement ASBL v Région wallonne
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, industrial project, mining operation








C_2021009EN.01000602.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Namur-Est Environnement ASBL v Région wallonne
(Case C-463/20)
(2021/C 9/10)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Namur-Est Environnement ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Questions referred







1.


Do a decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ and the decision authorising or refusing that working (single permit) form a single development consent (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) (1) relating to a single project (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of that directive) where, first, that working cannot take place without the first of those decisions and, secondly, the authority responsible for issuing single permits retains the ability to determine the environmental effects of that working more strictly having regard to the parameters set by the body that issued the first decision?










2.


If the answer to that first question is in the affirmative, are the requirements laid down by that directive, specifically in Articles 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, sufficiently met where the public participation phase takes place after adoption of the decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ but before adoption of the principal decision entitling the developer to proceed to work the quarry?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.
Case C-601/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2020 — Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl v European Commission, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Pirelli & C. SpA (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — European mark et for submarine and underground power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Single and continuous infringement — Succession of legal entities — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Principle of equal treatment — Distortion of evidence — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20 — European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings — Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises — Fines)
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, equal treatment, fundamental rights, legality, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2020399EN.01000701.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/7






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2020 — Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl v European Commission, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Pirelli & C. SpA
(Case C-601/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - European mark et for submarine and underground power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Single and continuous infringement - Succession of legal entities - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Principle of equal treatment - Distortion of evidence - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20 - European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings - Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises - Fines)
(2020/C 399/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented initially by: C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati, and subsequently by C. Firth and C. Griesenbach, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Sjödin, T. Vecchi and P. Rossi, acting as Agents), The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: J. Koponen, advokat, and A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa), Pirelli & C. SpA (represented by: G. Rizza and M. Siragusa, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Declares that Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 316/04
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, tourism








C_2020316EN.01000401.xml










24.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/4






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 316/04)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


15 June 2020




Case No


85 217 




Decision No


057/20/COL




EFTA State


Iceland




Region


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 Digital gift voucher scheme




Legal basis


Act on digital vouchers (i. lög um ferðagjöf)




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


To increase domestic demand for tourist services, thereby benefitting the tourist service sector




Form of aid


Grants (Indirect aid)




Budget


ISK 1,5 billion




Duration


15 June 2020 – 31 December 2020




Economic sectors


Tourism




Name and address of the granting authority


The Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs





Arnarhvoli við Lindargötu




101 Reykjavík




ICELAND








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 316/06
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, credit guarantee, epidemic, trade credit








C_2020316EN.01000601.xml










24.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/6






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 316/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


18 June 2020




Case No


85 090 




Decision No


060/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Region


Whole territory of Norway




Title


COVID-19 – Portfolio guarantee on trade credit insurance




Legal basis


Parliamentary resolution (‘stortingsvedtak’) appropriating the overall framework for the guarantee scheme (yet to be adopted)




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Ensure a functioning trade credit insurance market in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic




Form of aid


Guarantees




Budget


NOK 19,820 billion in guarantees




Duration


Until 31 December 2020




Economic sectors


Trade credit insurance




Name and address of the granting authority


GIEK





Postboks 1763 Vika




N-0122 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case T-586/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, full-time employment, indemnification, termination of employment, work contract








C_2020433EN.01005501.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/55






Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol
(Case T-586/20)
(2020/C 433/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MN (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period;










—


order Europol to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision;










—


order Europol to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified.










2.


Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging multiple manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 23 September 2020 2020/C 316/02
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020316EN.01000201.xml










24.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 September 2020
(2020/C 316/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1692 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,91 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4429 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91885 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4388 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0773 




ISK


Iceland króna


161,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9938 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,965 




HUF


Hungarian forint


365,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5001 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8686 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,9920 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6439 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5594 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0614 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7756 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5989 




KRW


South Korean won


1 362,80 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9607 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9433 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5505 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 375,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8574 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,778 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,7875 




THB


Thai baht


36,841 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4498 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,8339 




INR


Indian rupee


85,9845 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-195/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against XC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Effects of the surrender — Article 27 — Potential prosecutions for other offences — Specialty rule)
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, imprisonment, offence, public prosecution








C_2020399EN.01002201.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/22






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against XC
(Case C-195/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Effects of the surrender - Article 27 - Potential prosecutions for other offences - Specialty rule)
(2020/C 399/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party/parties in the main proceedings

XC

other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the specialty rule provided for in Article 27(2) does not preclude a measure involving deprivation of liberty taken against a person referred to in a first European arrest warrant on the basis of a different offence to that which constituted the basis for his or her surrender under that warrant and prior to that offence, when that person’s departure from the Member State which issued the first warrant was voluntary and he or she was surrendered to that Member State under a second European arrest warrant issued after that departure for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence, provided that, under the second European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority of that Member State gave its consent to extending the prosecution to the offence which gave rise to that measure involving deprivation of liberty.


(1)  OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 316/05
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, contract of carriage, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, emergency aid, epidemic, public transport, taxi








C_2020316EN.01000501.xml










24.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/5






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 316/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


23 June 2020




Case No


85 207 




Decision No


061/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title


COVID-19 Compensation scheme for taxi companies in Viken




Legal basis


The rules governing the measure are set out in the ‘Regler for tilskuddsordning til taxinæringen’.




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


The objective of the scheme is to compensate for damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to taxi companies that have entered into contracts concerning transportation of pupils with the public transportation authorities in Viken.




Budget


NOK 27,9 million




Duration


23 June – 31 August 2020




Economic sectors


Transport




Name and address of the granting authority


Østfold kollektivtrafikk





PO Box 220




1702 Sarpsborg




NORWAY




Ruter AS




PO Box 1030




0104  Oslo




NORWAY




Brakar AS




Bragernes torg 1




3017 Drammen




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9932 — Kaufland/SCP Real Digital Assets) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 331/02
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, supermarket








C_2020331EN.01000201.xml










7.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9932 — Kaufland/SCP Real Digital Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 331/02)
On 24 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 32020M9932. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, 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 316/03
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, chemical compound, chemical product, defence policy, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating








C_2020316EN.01000301.xml










24.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/3






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 316/03)

Decisions 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) 6231




17 September 2020



Strontium chromate
EC No. 232-142-6, CAS No. 7789-06-2


Wesco Aircraft EMEA Limited, Lawrence House, Riverside drive, BD19 4DH, Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom;


REACH/20/12/0


Use in primers applied by aerospace and defence sector where any of the following key functionalities or properties is necessary for the intended use: corrosion resistance, active corrosion inhibition, adhesion promotion, thermal shock resistance and chemical resistance


22 January 2026


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




PPG Europe B.V., Amsterdamseweg 14, 1422 AD Uithoorn, Netherlands


REACH/20/12/1




Cytec Engineered Materials Ltd., Abenbury Way, Wrexham Industrial Estate, LL13 9UZ Wrexham, United Kingdom


REACH/20/12/2






(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 C-461/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB
Date: 2020-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, liquidation, public procurement, supplier








C_2020414EN.01002401.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB
(Case C-461/20)
(2020/C 414/34)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Advania Sverige AB and Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Question referred

Does the circumstance that a new contractor has taken over the initial contractor’s rights and obligations under a framework agreement, after the initial contractor has been declared insolvent and the insolvency estate has transferred the agreement, mean that the new contractor will be deemed to have succeeded into the position of the initial contractor under conditions such as those referred to in Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of the Public Procurement Directive (1)?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).