do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information from the Commission about notifications by Germany concerning cases of non-reciprocity in accordance with Article 7 first paragraph point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council 2020/C 332/03
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Germany, Japan, Schengen Agreement, South Korea, external border of the EU, national








C_2020332EN.01000301.xml










8.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/3






Information from the Commission about notifications by Germany concerning cases of non-reciprocity in accordance with Article 7 first paragraph point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(2020/C 332/03)
I.   Legal basis

The present information is based on the notifications received from Germany in accordance with Article 7 first paragraph point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (codification) (1).
In accordance to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, where a third country listed in Annex II (list of third countries whose nationals are exempt from the requirement to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period) applies a visa requirement for nationals of at least one Member State the Member State concerned shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in writing.
Information about that notification shall be published without delay by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union, including information on the date of implementation of the visa requirement and the types of travel documents and visas concerned.
II.   Information about the notifications by Germany, including on the date of the implementation of the visa requirement and the types of travel documents and visas concerned.

The Commission has received notifications from Germany regarding:






—


Republic of Korea – notification sent on 21 July 2020;










—


Japan – notification sent on 13 August 2020.











Third country listed in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 implementing the visa requirement


Date of implementation of the visa requirement


Types of travel documents and visas concerned




Republic of Korea


13 April 2020


German ordinary passports




Japan


21 March 2020


German ordinary, diplomatic and service passports






(1)  OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 39.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2020/C 332/04
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU Member State, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2020332EN.01000401.xml










8.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/4






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2020/C 332/04)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


10.9.2020




Duration


10.9.2020-31.12.2020




Member State


European Union (All Member States)




Stock or Group of stocks


WIT/N3NO.




Species


Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus)




Zone


NAFO 3NO




Type(s) of fishing vessels


---




Reference number


16/TQ123






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-330/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Exter BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 121(1) — Inward processing procedure — Release for free circulation — Incurrence of a customs debt — Determination of the debt — Concept of ‘taxation elements’ — Taking account of a preferential tariff measure)
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, goods and services, import (EU), inward processing, tariff preference








C_2020414EN.01000701.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Exter BV
(Case C-330/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 121(1) - Inward processing procedure - Release for free circulation - Incurrence of a customs debt - Determination of the debt - Concept of ‘taxation elements’ - Taking account of a preferential tariff measure)
(2020/C 414/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Exter BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 121(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding the application of a preferential tariff measure leading to a reduced rate of customs duty, which was in force at the time of acceptance of the declaration of placing of goods under the inward processing procedure, but which was suspended at the date of acceptance of the declaration of release of those goods for free circulation.


(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 July 2020 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.)) 2020/C 332/08
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2020332EN.01000801.xml










8.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/8






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 July 2020


(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1))

(2020/C 332/08)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
The base rates for Iceland and Norway as from 1 July have been updated in light of exceptional circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.7.2020 –


2,32


- 0,46


0,46






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Case C-657/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt D v E (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(g) — Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work — Preparation of expert reports on the level of care and support needs — Taxable person appointed by the medical service of a care and support insurance fund — Bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing)
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, medical report, provision of services, social services, subcontracting, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2020414EN.01001501.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/15






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt D v E
(Case C-657/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(g) - Supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Preparation of expert reports on the level of care and support needs - Taxable person appointed by the medical service of a care and support insurance fund - Bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing)
(2020/C 414/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt D

Defendant: E

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the preparation of expert reports on care and support needs by an independent expert on behalf of the medical service of a care and support insurance fund, which are used by that fund in order to assess the scope of the entitlements to welfare and social security services of persons insured by it, constitutes a supply of services that is closely linked to welfare and social security work in so far as it is essential in order to ensure the proper implementation of transactions in that sector;










—


that provision does not preclude that expert from being refused recognition as a body devoted to social wellbeing, even though, first, that expert provides his or her services concerning the preparation of expert reports on care and support needs, as a subcontractor, at the request of that medical service which is recognised as such a body, second, the costs of preparing such reports are borne indirectly, on a flat-rate basis, by the care and support insurance fund concerned, and, third, that expert has the possibility, under national law, to conclude a contract relating to the preparation of those reports directly with that fund in order to be entitled to such recognition, but has not made use of that possibility.






(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
Case C-505/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2020 — RR and JG, applicants in the context of criminal proceedings
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, criminal proceedings, offence, ownership, seizure of goods








C_2021009EN.01000902.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2020 — RR and JG, applicants in the context of criminal proceedings
(Case C-505/20)
(2021/C 9/15)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Applicants in the context of criminal proceedings

RR and JG

Questions referred

Does Article 8 of Directive 2014/42 (1) preclude a national law pursuant to which a person whose property has been seized as an alleged instrumentality or as alleged proceeds of a criminal offence and has been frozen is not entitled to apply to the court during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings for the return of that property?
Is a national law which does not permit the confiscation of an ‘instrumentality’ which is the property of a third party who is not involved in the criminal offence but who has made that property available to the accused for the latter’s permanent use in such a way that, from the perspective of the relationship between them, it is the accused who exercises the rights of ownership, in line with Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 in conjunction with Article 2(3) thereof and Article 17 of the Charter?
If the [second] question is answered in the negative: Do the second sentence of Article 8(6) and Article 8(7) of Directive 2014/42 establish an obligation to interpret the national law as granting a third party whose property has been frozen and may be confiscated as an instrumentality the right to participate in the proceedings which may result in confiscation and to challenge the confiscation decision in court?


(1)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).
Case C-568/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) — Illegal stay — National legislation providing for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances — Consequences of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU:C:2015:260) — National legislation more favourable to the interested party — Direct effect of directives — Limits)
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law (EU), direct applicability, fine, foreign national, illegal migration, removal








C_2020414EN.01001201.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/12






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
(Case C-568/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) - Illegal stay - National legislation providing for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances - Consequences of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU:C:2015:260) - National legislation more favourable to the interested party - Direct effect of directives - Limits)
(2020/C 414/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MO

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Operative part of the judgment

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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation makes provision, in the event of a third-country national staying illegally in the territory of a Member State, for either a fine or removal, and the latter measure may be adopted only if there are aggravating circumstances concerning that national, additional to his or her illegal stay, the competent national authority may not rely directly on the provisions of that directive in order to adopt a return decision and to enforce that decision, even in the absence of such aggravating circumstances.


(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 332/05
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, package travel








C_2020332EN.01000501.xml










8.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/5






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 332/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


26 June 2020




Case No


85 348 




Decision No


069/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Region


COVID-19 Amendments to the subsidised loan scheme for package travel traders




Legal basis


The legal basis is the Parliamentary Decision authorising the measure. (1) The terms and conditions for the loan will be set out in a letter of assignment and term sheet issued by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway.




Type of measure


Subsidised loans scheme




Objective


By Decision No 046/20/COL, ESA approved a subsidised loan scheme for package travel traders (‘the loan scheme’). The objective of the loan scheme is to: (i) ensure that sufficient liquidity remains available for traders in the package travel market; (ii) ensure the quickest possible settlement of refunds or reimbursements to package travellers; and (iii) preserve the continuity of economic activity during and after the COVID-19 outbreak, by means of subsidised interest rates for loans. Reference is made to the said Decision for a more detailed description.




Budget


NOK 1 500  million




Duration


26.5.2020 until 31.12.2020




Economic sectors


Package travel




Name and address of the granting authority







Innovation Norway




Akersgata 13




0104 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/


(1)  https://stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Vedtak/Sak/?p=79784 (Tilleggsbevilgninger og omprioriteringer i statsbudsjettet 2020).
Case C-711/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Article 1 — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Definition of ‘technical regulation’ — Games of chance — Local duty on the operation of betting terminals — Tax rule — European Commission not notified — Enforceability against the taxpayer)
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, game of chance, marketing standard, provision of services, tax law, technical specification, technical standard








C_2020414EN.01001601.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/16






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH v Magistrat der Stadt Wien
(Case C-711/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Article 1 - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Definition of ‘technical regulation’ - Games of chance - Local duty on the operation of betting terminals - Tax rule - European Commission not notified - Enforceability against the taxpayer)
(2020/C 414/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services must be interpreted as meaning that a national tax rule that provides for taxation of the operation of betting terminals does not constitute a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that article.


(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1201 of 14 August 2020 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (Official journal of the European Union L 269 of 17 August 2020)
Date: 2020-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: import (EU), originating product, plant disease, plant health control, protection of plant life, surveillance concerning imports, third country, trade restriction








L_2020326EN.01001401.xml










8.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 326/14







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1201 of 14 August 2020 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)


(
Official journal of the European Union L 269 of 17 August 2020
)


Annex I, 
               “List of plants known to be susceptible to one or more subspecies of the specified pest (‘host plants’)”,






–


On page 23:




for :

« Coelorachis cylindrica (Michx.) Nash Coffea”

read:


                  “
                  Coelorachis cylindrica (Michx.) Nash

Coffea
                  ”
               







–


On page 26 :




for:


                  “
                  UlexUlmus
                  ”
               

read:


                  “
                  Ulex


Ulmus
                  ”