do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2020/C 344/16
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, sweetener








C_2020344EN.01001701.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/17






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 344/16)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Sodium cyclamate


The People’s Republic of China
Indonesia


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1160 of 15 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
(OJ L 192, 16.7.2016, p. 49)


17.7.2021






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2020/C 344/17
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, sweetener








C_2020344EN.01001801.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/18






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 344/17)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Sodium cyclamate


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1159 of 15 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited
(OJ L 192, 16.7.2016, p. 23)


17.7.2021






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column
Case T-640/20: Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Validity v Commission
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Hungary, access to EU information, distribution of EU funding, independence of people with disabilities, integration of people with disabilities








C_2021009EN.01002501.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/25






Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Validity v Commission
(Case T-640/20)
(2021/C 9/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: B. Van Vooren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2020) 5540 final of 6 August 2020 addressed to the Co-executive Director of the Validity Foundation, pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001 (1);










—


order the European Commission 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 that the contested decision violates the right to participation in public life, in conjunction with the right to independent living and integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as read in light of Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/330 of 5 March 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Official Journal of the European Union L 63 of 6 March 2018)
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, piping, steel, tube








L_2020342EN.01003201.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 342/32







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/330 of 5 March 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 63 of 6 March 2018
)


On page 43, in Annex I, seventh row in the table ‘PRC COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED IN THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION’:
for:


                  ‘Jiangsu Wujin Stainless Steel Pipe Group, Co. Ltd, Beijing,’ (TARIC additional code B 242),

read:


                  ‘Jiangsu Wujin Stainless Steel Pipe Group, Co. Ltd, Changzhou,’ (TARIC additional code B 242).
Case C-518/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — XP v Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, incapacity for work, paid leave








C_2021019EN.01001802.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — XP v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH
(Case C-518/20)
(2021/C 19/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: XP

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave; ‘the BUrIG’) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who suffers, on health grounds, a full reduction of earning capacity in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his reduction of earning capacity, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted reduction of earning capacity even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his leave entitlement by informing him of the leave concerned and inviting him to take it?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Under these conditions, is it also impossible for the entitlement to lapse at a later point in time in cases where a full reduction of earning capacity persists?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1538 of 16 October 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pampepato di Terni’/‘Panpepato di Terni’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Umbria, confectionery product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2020353EN.01000101.xml










23.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 353/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1538
of 16 October 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pampepato di Terni’/‘Panpepato di Terni’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Pampepato di Terni’/‘Panpepato di Terni’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pampepato di Terni’/‘Panpepato di Terni’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Pampepato di Terni’/‘Panpepato di Terni’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. – bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 October 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 217, 1.7.2020, p. 33.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 15 October 2020 2020/C 344/13
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020344EN.01001401.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/14






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 October 2020
(2020/C 344/13)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1698 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,15 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4429 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90535 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3780 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0697 




ISK


Iceland króna


163,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9678 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,340 




HUF


Hungarian forint


364,58 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5518 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8765 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,2868 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6554 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5453 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0660 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7762 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5935 




KRW


South Korean won


1 344,08 




ZAR


South African rand


19,5329 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8756 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5818 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 278,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8599 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,056 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,4345 




THB


Thai baht


36,574 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5942 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,1559 




INR


Indian rupee


85,9510 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-14/20: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2020 — Tratkowski v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Internal Competition COM/2/AD 12/18 (AD 12) — Submission of the application using the form provided for that purpose and referred to in Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations — Request to be admitted to the competition, lodged at the same time and on a separate sheet of paper, to the Appointing Authority — Eligibility conditions — Decision of the selection board to reject the applicant’s application — Rejection by the selection board of the candidate’s request for re-examination due to it being out of time — Decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to grant the applicant’s request to set aside one of the conditions provided for in the notice of competition in order to admit him to the competition — Challenge to the decision of the Appointing Authority and not to that of the selection board — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, admissibility, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional qualifications, seniority, servant (EU)








C_2021009EN.01002101.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/21






Order of the General Court of 16 October 2020 — Tratkowski v Commission
(Case T-14/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Internal Competition COM/2/AD 12/18 (AD 12) - Submission of the application using the form provided for that purpose and referred to in Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Request to be admitted to the competition, lodged at the same time and on a separate sheet of paper, to the Appointing Authority - Eligibility conditions - Decision of the selection board to reject the applicant’s application - Rejection by the selection board of the candidate’s request for re-examination due to it being out of time - Decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to grant the applicant’s request to set aside one of the conditions provided for in the notice of competition in order to admit him to the competition - Challenge to the decision of the Appointing Authority and not to that of the selection board - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 9/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Michal Tratkowski (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Wardyn, Radca Prawny)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 March 2019 by which the Appointing Authority of that institution rejected the applicant’s request to be admitted to Internal Competition COM/2/AD 12/18 (AD 12) on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition, laid down in the relevant notice of competition, relating to him holding grade AD 10.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Mr Michal Tratkowski shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Case T-628/20: Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_2020414EN.01004701.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/47






Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-628/20)
(2020/C 414/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F. Laprévote, E. Vahida, V. Blanc, I. Metaxas-Maranghidis and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 31 July 2020 on State aid SA. 57659 — Spain — Recapitalisation fund (1); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.




The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Spain to reserve aid to undertakings established in Spain, the European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to the pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Spain. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission deprived itself of its discretion in reviewing State aid and committed an error of law by allowing Spain to exercise discretion in selecting beneficiaries of the aid scheme.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.






(1)  OJ 2020 C 269, p. 8.
Case T-629/19: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2020 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a coupling to hitch refrigeration or air conditioning equipment to a motor vehicle — Ground for invalidity — Failure to comply with the requirements for protection — Articles 4 to 9 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal — Pleas in law referring to the grounds of another decision — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, vehicle parts








C_2021009EN.01002001.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/20






Order of the General Court of 16 October 2020 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)
(Case T-629/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a coupling to hitch refrigeration or air conditioning equipment to a motor vehicle - Ground for invalidity - Failure to comply with the requirements for protection - Articles 4 to 9 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal - Pleas in law referring to the grounds of another decision - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 9/29)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: L. Oliva Torras, SA (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mecánica del Frío, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: J. Torras Toll, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 July 2019 (Case R 1399/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between L. Oliva Torras and Mecánica del Frío.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


L. Oliva Torras, SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO and by Mecánica del Frío, SL.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.