do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-134/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Article 29 TEU — Article 215 TFEU — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities covered by the freezing of financial funds and resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine an action for damages for the harm allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Inadequate statement of reasons for legal acts imposing restrictive measures)
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, bank, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








C_2020414EN.01000301.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-134/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Article 29 TEU - Article 215 TFEU - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities covered by the freezing of financial funds and resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine an action for damages for the harm allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Inadequate statement of reasons for legal acts imposing restrictive measures)
(2020/C 414/03)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Bank Refah Kargaran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin and I. Boubaker, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: R. Tricot, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, and subsequently by L. Gussetti, A. Bouquet, R. Tricot and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Bank Refah Kargaran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case T-184/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, appointment of members, competence of the institution, infringement of EU law, member of the Court of Justice (EU), termination of employment, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020433EN.01005101.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/51






Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-184/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 433/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2020 addressed to the President of the Council of the European Union inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General to the post currently held by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Council Decision (EU) 2020/1486 of 6 October 2020 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union,within the EEA Joint Committee, concerning the amendment of Protocol 31to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EEA Joint Committee, European Economic Area, financial services, general budget (EU), protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement








L_2020343EN.01000501.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 343/5








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/1486
of 6 October 2020
         
on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union,within the EEA Joint Committee, concerning the amendment of Protocol 31to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (‘the EEA Agreement’) entered into force on 1 January 1994.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement (‘Protocol 31’).












(3)


Protocol 31 contains provisions on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.












(4)


It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the European Union regarding financial services.












(5)


Protocol 31 should therefore be amended in order to allow for that extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2019.












(6)


The position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the draft decision of the EEA Joint Committee,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be adopted, on behalf of the Union, within the EEA Joint Committee concerning the proposed amendment of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms, shall be based on the draft decision of the EEA Joint Committee (3).


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




Done at Brussels, 6 October 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH
            





(1)  
            OJ L 305, 30.11.1994, p. 6.

(2)  
            OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.

(3)  See document ST 10127/20 on http://register.consilium.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9950 — Clearlake Capital Group/TA Associates Management/Ivanti Software) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 415/06
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2020415EN.01001301.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/13






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9950 — Clearlake Capital Group/TA Associates Management/Ivanti Software)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 415/06)
On 6 October 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 32020M9950. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9669 — PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 3/06
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: culture industry, economic concentration, investment company, mass media, merger control, multinational enterprise








C_2021003EN.01000601.xml










6.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9669 — PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 3/06)
On 6 October 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 32020M9669. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 5 October 2020 2020/C 330/03
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020330EN.01000401.xml










6.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 October 2020
(2020/C 330/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1768 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4400 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90810 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4645 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0781 




ISK


Iceland króna


162,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8855 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,096 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,17 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4980 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8740 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,1614 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6379 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5614 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1203 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7703 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6007 




KRW


South Korean won


1 363,72 




ZAR


South African rand


19,3447 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0128 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5680 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 324,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8867 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,961 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,5353 




THB


Thai baht


36,846 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6568 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,2551 




INR


Indian rupee


86,0870 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-180/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, admissibility, intergovernmental conference (EU), member of the Court of Justice (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2020433EN.01005002.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/50






Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
(Case T-180/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 433/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood and J. Robb, Barristers, and H. Mercer QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFUE seeking partial annulment of the Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 29 January 2020.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Council Decision (EU) 2020/1430 of 6 October 2020 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee, concerning the amendment of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EEA Joint Committee, European Economic Area, general budget (EU), protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement, social security








L_2020333EN.01000601.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 333/6








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/1430
of 6 October 2020
         
on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee, concerning the amendment of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 46 and 48 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (‘the EEA Agreement’) entered into force on 1 January 1994.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement (‘Protocol 31’).












(3)


Protocol 31 contains provisions on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.












(4)


It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the European Union regarding the free movement of workers, the coordination of social security systems and measures for migrants, including migrants from third countries.












(5)


Protocol 31 should therefore be amended in order to allow for that extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2019.












(6)


The position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the draft decision of the EEA Joint Committee,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be adopted, on behalf of the Union, within the EEA Joint Committee concerning the proposed amendment of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms, shall be based on the draft decision of the EEA Joint Committee (3).


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




Done at Brussels, 6 October 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH
            





(1)  
            OJ L 305, 30.11.1994, p. 6.

(2)  
            OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.

(3)  See document ST 10124/20 on http://register.consilium.europa.eu
Case T-550/20: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to appoint an Advocate General to the Court of Justice — Act not open to challenge — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-10-06
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_2020433EN.01005102.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/51






Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
(Case T-550/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to appoint an Advocate General to the Court of Justice - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 433/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Decision (EU) 2020/1251 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 2 September 2020 appointing three Judges and an Advocate General to the Court of Justice (OJ 2020 L 292, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the appointment of Mr Athanasios Rantos to the post of Advocate General at the Court of Justice.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief before the General Court and the Court of Justice in Cases T-550/20 R, C-423/20 P(R) and C-424/20 P(R).






(1)  OJ C 348, 10.10.2020.
Case T-325/19: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (ARRIGO CIPRIANI)
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021009EN.01003301.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/33






Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (ARRIGO CIPRIANI)
(Case T-325/19) (1)

(2021/C 9/47)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2020 on the proposal for a Council decision amending the period of application of Decision No 940/2014/EU concerning the dock dues in the French outermost regions (COM(2020)0371 — C9-0281/2020 — 2020/0174(CNS))
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: French overseas department and region, derogation from EU law, epidemic, import tax, infectious disease, local tax, originating product, peripheral region, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2021395EN.01011501.xml










29.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/115






P9_TA(2020)0247
Dock dues extension in the French outermost regions *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2020 on the proposal for a Council decision amending the period of application of Decision No 940/2014/EU concerning the dock dues in the French outermost regions (COM(2020)0371 — C9-0281/2020 — 2020/0174(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2021/C 395/19)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2020)0371),










—


having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0281/2020),










—


having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A9-0159/2020),












1.


Approves the Commission proposal;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.