do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-298/18: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Banco Comercial Português and Others v Commission
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law - national law, State aid, aid for restructuring, bank, capital transfer, company in difficulties, control of State aid








C_2020433EN.01006702.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/67






Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Banco Comercial Português and Others v Commission
(Case T-298/18) (1)

(2020/C 433/84)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case C-473/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 September 2020 — ‘INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT’ AD v Komisiya za finansov nadzor
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: UCITS fund, board of directors, disclosure of information, dissemination of information, financial legislation, penalty, trade information








C_2020433EN.01003201.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 September 2020 — ‘INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT’ AD v Komisiya za finansov nadzor
(Case C-473/20)
(2020/C 433/40)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘INVEST FUND MANAGEMENT’ AD

Defendant: Komisiya za finansov nadzor

Questions referred







1.


What meaning did the European legislature intend to give to the term ‘essential elements’ of the prospectus within the meaning of Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (1)?










2.


Is Article 69(2) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that any change to the minimum information in prospectuses provided for in Schedule A of Annex I is always covered by the term ‘essential elements’ within the meaning of Article 72 of the Directive, so that these must be updated in due time?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the negative, is it to be assumed that information about a change in the composition of the board of directors of a particular management company that concerns non-executive members who are not assigned any management functions is included in the term ‘essential elements’ within the meaning of Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009?










4.


Is Article 99а(r) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that it is only permissible to impose a penalty on a management company (for each of the investment funds managed by it) in the event of repeated non-compliance with obligations concerning information to be provided to investors imposed in accordance with the national provisions transposing Articles 68 to 82 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32.
Case T-694/18: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — DEI v Commission
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, principle of proportionality








C_2020433EN.01006801.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/68






Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — DEI v Commission
(Case T-694/18) (1)

(2020/C 433/85)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case T-606/20: 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.01004102.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/41






Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER
(Case T-606/20)
(2020/C 414/63)
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. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(4)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(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-001-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 02/2020 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. 02/2020 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).
Case C-472/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 September 2020 — Lombard Lízing Zrt. v PN
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, exchange rate, higher court, interpretation of the law, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2020423EN.01002902.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 September 2020 — Lombard Lízing Zrt. v PN
(Case C-472/20)
(2020/C 423/44)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lombard Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: PN

Questions referred







1.


If the unfair contract term concerns the main subject matter of the contract (the information on the exchange rate was not compliant), with the result that the contract cannot continue in existence, and there is no agreement between the parties, does the fact that, in the absence of any default rule under national law, guidance on a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract is provided by a position statement adopted by the highest court which is, however, not binding on lower courts, ensure the full effectiveness of Directive 93/13? (1)











2.


If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is it possible to restore the original position in a situation where the contract cannot continue in existence due to the unfairness of a term concerning its main subject matter, there is no agreement between the parties, and the position statement referred to above cannot be applied?










3.


If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, can the law impose a requirement in respect of [this] type of contract stipulating that, when making an application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the main subject matter of the contract, the consumer must also make an application for a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract?










4.


If the answer to the second question referred is in the negative, where it is not possible to restore the original position, is it possible for contracts to be declared valid or effective by means of ex post legislation, in the interests of ensuring a balance between the parties?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-602/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, infringement of EU law, pension scheme, retirement conditions, seniority, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020414EN.01004101.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/41






Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission
(Case T-602/20)
(2020/C 414/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MS (represented by: M. Medla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in the form of the decision on the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Decision PMO 4, TFT IN, 0425863600, of the European Commission, PMO — Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO 4 — Pensions and relations with former officials, of 3 December 2019, in the form of Decision HR.E.2/NX/sb/Ares of the European Commission, DG HR — Directorate General for Human Resources and Security, DIR E — Legal Affairs & Partnerships, Unit 2 — Appeals & Case Monitoring, of 30 June 2020, by which the applicant’s complaint against the contested decision was rejected.
The action is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2004 laying down general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
The applicant claims that the defendant incorrectly used as a basis for the calculation of the years of pensionable service to be credited the capital that was actually transferred and discounted by 3,9 % per annum to the day of the transfer application. According to the applicant, instead, the defendant should have used as a basis for this calculation the value, submitted by the national pension scheme provider, of the pension rights at the time of the transfer application. This would have led to a number of years of pensionable service to be credited that is over 20 % higher.


(1)  Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135).
Council Decision of 30 September 2020 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency 2020/C 330/02
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Croatia, European Chemicals Agency, appointment of members, board of directors, decision-making body (EU)




C_2020330EN.01000201.xml










6.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/2






COUNCIL DECISION
of 30 September 2020
appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency
(2020/C 330/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 79 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that the Council is to appoint one representative from each Member State as Members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Management Board’).










(2)


By its decision of 17 December 2018, the Council appointed one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (2).










(3)


The Croatian government has informed the Council of its intention to replace its representative on the Management Board and has submitted a nomination for a new representative who should be appointed for the period from 1 October 2020 until 1 October 2024,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
Ms Dubravka Marija KREKOVIĆ, of Croatian nationality, born on 11 August 1973, shall be appointed member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency replacing Mr Bojan VIDOVIĆ, for the period from 1 October 2020 until 1 October 2024.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.


Done at Brussels, 30 September 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH




(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 17 December 2018 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (OJ C 460, 21.12.2018, p. 11).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 29 September 2020 2020/C 322/02
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020322EN.01000201.xml










30.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 September 2020
(2020/C 322/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1702 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4461 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90963 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5343 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0795 




ISK


Iceland króna


162,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,0543 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,148 




HUF


Hungarian forint


365,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5435 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8721 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,1649 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6412 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5655 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0691 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7749 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6018 




KRW


South Korean won


1 365,89 




ZAR


South African rand


19,8685 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9777 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5510 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 419,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8639 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,695 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,1625 




THB


Thai baht


36,988 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6022 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0452 




INR


Indian rupee


86,2750 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-13/19: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member States' contribution, financial loss, liability of the State, own resources, payment, rights of the defence








C_2020390EN.01005102.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/51






Order of the General Court of 30 September 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-13/19) (1)

(2020/C 390/69)
Language of the case: Czech
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.