do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-135/20: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — JS v Câmara Municipal de Gondomar (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Successive contracts — Prohibition on converting fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts — Whether permissible)
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, full-time employment, public institution, temporary employment, work contract








C_2020414EN.01002001.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/20






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — JS v Câmara Municipal de Gondomar
(Case C-135/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Successive contracts - Prohibition on converting fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts - Whether permissible)
(2020/C 414/25)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JS

Defendant: Câmara Municipal de Gondomar

Operative part of the order

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that, in the public sector, prohibits absolutely the conversion of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts into a contract of indefinite duration, where that legislation does not include, as regards that sector, another effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts.


(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9966 — EQT/Colisée) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: care for the elderly, economic concentration, home care, investment company, merger control, nursing care, provision of services, social facilities








C_2020322EN.01002801.xml










30.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/28






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9966 — EQT/Colisée)
(Text with EEA relevance)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(2020/C 322/07)

1.   

On 22 September 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:






—


EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. (‘EQT’, Luxembourg), as fund manager for and on behalf of the investment fund EQT Infrastructure V,










—


Financière Colisée S.A.S. (‘Colisée’, France), controlled by Indigo International S.à r.l, which is a holding company controlled by funds managed by IK Investment Partners.




EQT acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Colisée.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for EQT: to make investments in infrastructure and infrastructure-related assets and businesses in primarily in Europe and North America. The EQT group of funds invest in a wide variety of industries and sectors,










—


for Colisée: active within elderly care and manages nursing homes and service flats and provides homecare and post-acute services. Colisée operates in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy and China.






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:
Case M.9966 — EQT/Colisée
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-233/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — B. v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Third-country national suffering from a serious illness — Return decision — Judicial remedy — Automatic suspensory effect — Conditions — Grant of social assistance — Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, illegal migration, illness, judicial review, removal, return migration, right to justice, social assistance








C_2020399EN.01001301.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — B. v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège
(Case C-233/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Third-country national suffering from a serious illness - Return decision - Judicial remedy - Automatic suspensory effect - Conditions - Grant of social assistance - Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2020/C 399/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B.

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Article 19(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute on social assistance, the outcome of which is linked to the possible suspension of the effects of a return decision taken in respect of a third-country national suffering from a serious illness, must hold that an action for annulment and suspension of that decision leads to automatic suspension of that decision, even though suspension of that decision does not result from the application of national legislation, where:






—


that action contains arguments seeking to establish that the enforcement of that decision would expose that third-country national to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, which does not appear to be manifestly unfounded, and that










—


that legislation does not provide for any other remedy, governed by precise, clear and foreseeable rules, which automatically entail the suspension of such a decision.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case T-835/19: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — CrossFit v EUIPO — Hochwarter (CROSSBOX) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020390EN.01003702.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/37






Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — CrossFit v EUIPO — Hochwarter (CROSSBOX)
(Case T-835/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 390/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CrossFit Inc. (Scotts Valley, California, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marlis Hochwarter (Vienna, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 1832/2018-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between CrossFit and Marlis Hochwarter.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by CrossFit Inc.






(1)  OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9798 — BorgWarner/Delphi Technologies) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 442/03
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, engine, merger control, motor vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2020442EN.01000301.xml










21.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 442/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9798 — BorgWarner/Delphi Technologies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 442/03)
On 30 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 32020M9798. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-402/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/CE — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Parent of an adult child suffering from a serious illness — Return decision — Judicial remedy — Automatic suspensory effect — Safeguards pending return — Basic needs — Articles 7, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family migration, family relationship, foreign national, illegal migration, illness, judicial review, protection of privacy, removal, return migration, right to justice








C_2020399EN.01001702.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/17






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing
(Case C-402/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/CE - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Parent of an adult child suffering from a serious illness - Return decision - Judicial remedy - Automatic suspensory effect - Safeguards pending return - Basic needs - Articles 7, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2020/C 399/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LM

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5, 13 and 14 of Directive 2008/115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Article 7, Article 19(2) and Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide, as far as possible, for the basic needs of a third-country national to be met where:






—


that national has appealed against a return decision made in respect of him or her;










—


the adult child of that third-country national is suffering from a serious illness;










—


the presence of that third-country national with that adult child is essential;










—


an appeal was brought on behalf of that adult child against a return decision taken against him or her, the enforcement of which may expose that adult child to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, and










—


that third-country national does not have the means to meet his or her needs himself or herself.






(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019
Case T-607/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electrical energy, energy distribution, energy grid, energy law, energy storage, rights of the defence, security of supply, trans-European network








C_2020414EN.01004201.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/42






Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER
(Case T-607/20)
(2020/C 414/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and seven other applicants (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision;










—


annul Article 1 of Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(5)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c), 11(2)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation;










—


order ACER to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 July 2020 in Case A-002-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation and, as relevant, of Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER and Annex I to that decision.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1), by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law through the failure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal to apply correctly the requirements for the design and operation of the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation, endorsing ACER’s amendment of the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6).
Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a Contracting entity — Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 322/09
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Finland, Southern Finland, airport, civil aviation, provision of services, traveller








C_2020322EN.01004401.xml










30.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/44






Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting entity — Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 322/09)
On 1 March 2018 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request was 2 March 2018 and the initial period available to the Commission for deciding on this request was of 145 working days.
This request is made by Finavia Oyj and concerns activities relating to the provision of commercial services for flight passengers at Helsinki airport, in Finland. The relevant notices were published on page 21 of OJ C 114 of 28 March 2018, page 9 of OJ C 359 of 5 October 2018, on page 3 of OJ C 211 of 25 June 2020 and on page 23 of OJ C 243 of 23 July 2020. The prolonged deadline was 30 September 2020.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV to Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption concerned. Given the current context of the Covid 19 sanitary crisis, at Finavia Oyj’s request and with the Commission’s agreement, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby suspended until 31 December 2021. This is without prejudice to the possibility of further suspensions or extensions of the deadline.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case C-474/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 30 September 2020 — I.D. v Z. b. d.d., Z.
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, application of EU law, consumer credit, consumer protection, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2020423EN.01003001.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 30 September 2020 — I.D. v Z. b. d.d., Z.
(Case C-474/20)
(2020/C 423/45)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: I.D.

Defendant: Z. b. d.d., Z.

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that its provisions are applicable to a loan agreement concluded prior to the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, which loan was converted following accession on the basis of legislation adopted by the Republic of Croatia after its accession to the European Union, and does the Court of Justice therefore have jurisdiction to answer the second question?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the following question arises:










2.


Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as the special law at issue in the main proceedings — ZID ZPK 2015 — Zakon o konverziji (Law on Conversion), which, on the one hand, obliges the supplier of services under a mandatory provision to offer the consumer the conclusion of an annex to the loan agreement in the manner set out in that law, which annex replaces individual terms and conditions of the agreement which have been declared null and void by a court ruling already at the time of entry into force of that law (terms and conditions concerning unilateral changes to the interest rate) or subsequently (terms and conditions concerning a currency clause linked to the Swiss franc (CHF)) with valid contractual terms and conditions in such a manner as if the terms and conditions stipulated in the annex had been in force between the parties from the outset, thereby ensuring the validity of the agreement, and, on the other hand, providing that payments made pursuant to unfair terms and conditions by a consumer who has voluntarily agreed to conclude the annex are to be counted towards his obligations arising from the terms and conditions of the valid annex, by way of disposing of any overpayment or reimbursing the consumer if the overpayment exceeds the sum of equal instalments under the new loan repayment schedule, which disposal or reimbursement is to be effected in the manner provided for by that law?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9776 — Worldline/Ingenico) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 73/02
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic banking, electronic commerce, electronic money, merger control, payment, payment system, software








C_2021073EN.01000201.xml










2.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9776 — Worldline/Ingenico)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 73/02)
On 30 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) 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 32020M9776. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.