do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-528/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — CT v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021028EN.01002001.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — CT v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-528/20)
(2021/C 28/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CT

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 16 October 2020 2020/C 347/08
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020347EN.01000901.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/9






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 October 2020
(2020/C 347/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1741 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4420 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90915 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3593 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0721 




ISK


Iceland króna


163,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9570 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,279 




HUF


Hungarian forint


364,36 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5558 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8763 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,3300 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6555 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5497 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0993 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7746 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5942 




KRW


South Korean won


1 341,16 




ZAR


South African rand


19,3867 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8639 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5820 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 317,86 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8708 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,148 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,5767 




THB


Thai baht


36,608 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6054 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,8720 




INR


Indian rupee


86,0715 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1516 of 19 October 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, non-proliferation of arms, technology transfer, terrorism, trade restriction








L_2020348EN.01001501.xml










20.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 348/15








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1516
of 19 October 2020
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 20 September 2016 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 (1).












(2)


The restrictive measures set out in Article 2(2) and Article 3(3) and (4) of Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 apply until 31 October 2020. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures should be extended until 31 October 2021.












(3)


Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 6 of Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:






‘5.


The measures referred to in Article 2(2) and Article 3(3) and (4) shall apply until 31 October 2021.’.






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




Done at Luxembourg, 19 October 2020.


For the Council


The President

J. KLOECKNER
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 of 20 September 2016 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them and repealing Common Position 2002/402/CFSP (OJ L 255, 21.9.2016, p. 25).
Case T-631/20: Action brought on 19 October 2020 — MZ v Commission
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, language skills, linguistic discrimination, professional qualifications, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020423EN.01003902.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/39






Action brought on 19 October 2020 — MZ v Commission
(Case T-631/20)
(2020/C 423/57)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: MZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 17 July 2019 to exclude the applicant from the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 (AD7) — 2, Administrators in the field of Taxation;










—


annul the decision of 10 December 2019 confirming the decision to exclude the applicant from the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 (AD7) — 2, Administrators in the field of Taxation;










—


annul the decision of the appointing authority of 8 July 2020 communicated by email on the same day to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, (i) alleging infringement of the legal provisions governing the use of languages by the EU institutions, (ii) raising the prohibition of language discrimination, and (iii) alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the principle of equal treatment of candidates, and Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of the assessments due to the lack of stability of the selection board, (ii) infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, and (iii) that the decision is manifestly illogical and inconsistent and the selection board made a manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice and resulting infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the selection board failed to comply with the requirements of the notice regarding the general assessment and the assessment of the required competencies for each field.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and manifest error of assessment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure by the selection board to state reasons in the context of a review and infringement of the right to an effective remedy, the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence, in so far as the selection board adopted a standardised statement of reasons from which, it is claimed, it is not apparent whether the applicant’s competencies were assessed or what criteria were in fact adopted in that regard.
Case C-525/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2020 — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre and Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: degradation of the environment, environmental impact, surface water, water management, water pollution, water protection, water resources








C_2021035EN.01002501.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2020 — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre and Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire
(Case C-525/20)
(2021/C 35/37)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association France Nature Environnement

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) be interpreted as permitting Member States, when authorising a programme or project, not to take into account their temporary, short-term impacts on surface water status which are without lasting consequences?










2.


If so, what conditions should those programmes and projects meet for the purposes of Article 4 of that directive and in particular paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.
Case C-523/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 19 October 2020 — Koppány 2007 Zrt. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, migrant worker, residence, residence permit, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation








C_2021028EN.01001801.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 19 October 2020 — Koppány 2007 Zrt. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
(Case C-523/20)
(2021/C 28/27)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Koppány 2007 Zrt.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Questions referred







1.


Must the expression ‘are legally resident’ contained in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 (1), extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these regulations solely on the ground of their nationality, be interpreted as meaning that it is also applicable to nationals of third countries who reside and have a residence permit in the Member State concerned and have a document stating their place of accommodation issued by the immigration authority?










2.


May the expression ‘are legally resident’ be applied to nationals of third countries who have a certified place of accommodation at the registered office of their employer?










3.


When interpreting the expression ‘are legally resident’, should account be taken of the concept of ‘residence’ within the meaning of Article 1(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems or of the concept of ‘residence’ as defined in the national legislation of the Member State in question?










4.


What meaning should be given to the expression ‘are legally resident’ as a uniform concept of EU law?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2010 L 344, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1),

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).
Case C-521/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 19 October 2020 — J.P. v B.d.S.L.
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, general legal principle, principle of proportionality, road transport tariff, toll, traffic offence








C_2021035EN.01002401.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 19 October 2020 — J.P. v B.d.S.L.
(Case C-521/20)
(2021/C 35/35)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Complainant: J.P.

Defendant authority: B.d.S.L.

Question referred

Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (in particular in conjunction with the Eurovignette Directive 1999/62/EC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the combination of national rules which — as in the case of Paragraph 20(2) of the BStMG in conjunction with Paragraph 22(2) of the VStG — requires the cumulative prosecution and punishment of serial breaches of the obligation to pay tolls committed on separate stretches of road is contrary to the prohibition of multiple prosecution and punishment if there is not simultaneously, at the legislative level, both an obligation of coordination for all the authorities and courts competent to conduct such proceedings and an explicit obligation to apply the principle of proportionality effectively in relation to the amount of the overall penalty?


(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42).
Case C-531/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: lawyer, legal action, legal aid, legal expenses, patent law








C_2021028EN.01002101.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
(Case C-531/20)
(2021/C 28/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: NovaText GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Question referred

Are Article 3(1) and Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation imposing an obligation on the unsuccessful party to reimburse the costs incurred by the successful party for assistance by a patent lawyer in proceedings brought under trade mark law, whether or not the patent lawyer’s assistance was necessary for the purpose of appropriate legal action?


(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria 2020/C 347/06
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2020347EN.01000701.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/7






Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
(2020/C 347/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1506 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1505 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012. The grounds for designation of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, before 1 March 2021, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 342 I, 16.10.2020, p. 6.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 342 I, 16.10.2020, p. 1.
Case C-527/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — PJ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021028EN.01001902.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — PJ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-527/20)
(2021/C 28/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PJ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-377/20 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2020 — KN v EESC (Application for interim measures — Civil Service — Member of the EESC — Harassment — OLAF investigation — EESC Bureau decision — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — New application — New facts — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administrator, decision-making body (EU), disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work








C_2021009EN.01002202.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/22






Order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2020 — KN v EESC
(Case T-377/20 R II)
(Application for interim measures - Civil Service - Member of the EESC - Harassment - OLAF investigation - EESC Bureau decision - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - New application - New facts - Lack of urgency)
(2021/C 9/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KN (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, I. Pouli and A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the decision of the EESC of 9 June 2020 by which the applicant was, inter alia, discharged from all supervisory and personnel management activities.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-522/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 October 2020 — OE v VY
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence








C_2021035EN.01002402.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 October 2020 — OE v VY
(Case C-522/20)
(2021/C 35/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OE

Defendant: VY

Questions referred







1.


Does the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 infringe the prohibition of discrimination in Article 18 TFEU on the ground that it provides, as a precondition to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of residence, depending on the nationality of the applicant, for a shorter period of residence than the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
Does that infringement of the prohibition of discrimination mean that, based on the fundamental rule laid down in the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003, a period of residence of 12 months is required for all applicants, irrespective of their nationality, in order to rely upon the jurisdiction of the courts in the place of residence or is it to be assumed that a period of 6 months’ residence is the precondition for all applicants?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).