do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-657/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Finland, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, low cost airline, right of establishment








C_2020433EN.01006601.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/66






Action brought on 30 October 2020 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-657/20)
(2020/C 433/82)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair (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 four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and incompletely applied the Temporary Framework and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’) and by finding that Finnair had no significant market power.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the 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 liberalization of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Finland by authorising Finland to reserve aid to Finnair.










3.


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










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.






(1)  European Commission’s decision (EU) of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 COVID — Recapitalisation of Finnair, OJ 2020 C 310, p. 6
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2020/C 366/08
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, bar, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2020366EN.01001201.xml










30.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/12






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 366/08)
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)





High fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement bars


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1246 of 28 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement bars originating in the People’s Republic of China
(OJ L 204, 29.7.2016, p. 70)


30.7.2021






(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.
Council Decision (EU) 2020/1636 of 30 October 2020 appointing a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, Poland, appointment of members








L_2020369EN.01000101.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 369/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/1636
of 30 October 2020
         
appointing a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025
         


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 300(2) and Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/853 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),


Having regard to the proposal made by the Republic of Poland,


After consulting the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The term of office of the members of the European Economic and Social Committee expired on 20 September 2020.












(2)


On 2 October 2020, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/1392 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025, and repealing and replacing the Council Decision appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025 adopted on 18 September 2020 (2). On 22 October 2020, the Council adopted a further Decision appointing a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025 (3). One seat on the European Economic and Social Committee for the Republic of Poland has remained empty and needs to be filled by a subsequent appointing decision, applying retroactively as from 21 September 2020.












(3)


By letter of 22 September 2020, the Republic of Poland confirmed the nomination of Mr Jacek KRAWCZYK for appointment as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025, in order to complete its list of members,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Jacek KRAWCZYK, Vice-president, Confederation Lewiatan, is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply as from 21 September 2020.




Done at Brussels, 30 October 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH
            





(1)  
            OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 15.

(2)  
            OJ L 322, 5.10.2020, p. 1.

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/1555 of 22 October 2020 appointing a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025 (OJ L 355, 26.10.2020, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9954 — Sumitomo/AAR/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 381/01
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, investment company, logistics, merger control, service, spare part








C_2020381EN.01000101.xml










12.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9954 — Sumitomo/AAR/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 381/01)
On 30 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 32020M9954. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-566/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2020 — DG v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021028EN.01002301.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2020 — DG v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-566/20)
(2021/C 28/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DG

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).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10000 — PreZero International/SUEZ Nordic) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 366/13
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chain store, consumer goods, economic concentration, merger control, retail selling, supermarket, waste management








C_2020366EN.01005301.xml










30.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/53






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10000 — PreZero International/SUEZ Nordic)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 366/13)

1.   
On 22 October 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


PreZero International GmbH (‘PreZero’), belonging to the Schwarz Group, both of Germany,










—


SUEZ Nordic AB (‘SUEZ Nordic, ‘Sweden’), belonging to the SUEZ Group (France).




PreZero acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of SUEZ Nordic.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


PreZero provides waste disposal and recycling services, and is active in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the United States while the Schwarz Group is also active in the retail sale of consumer goods in Sweden, through its chain of Lidl and Kaufland stores,










—


SUEZ Nordic comprises the waste management operations of the SUEZ Group in Sweden, and is active in the collection, pre-treatment, sorting, recycling, disposal of waste and trading of waste and commodities.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10000 — PreZero International/SUEZ Nordic
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-659/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — SJ v Commission
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Sweden, award of contract, carriage of passengers, free competition, provision of services, rail transport, services of general interest








C_2021028EN.01005302.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/53






Action brought on 30 October 2020 — SJ v Commission
(Case T-659/20)
(2021/C 28/83)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SJ AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: J. Karlsson and M. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1193 of 2 July 2020 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to railway passenger transport in Sweden (1) in so far as it declares that the Utilities Directive shall continue to apply to procurement contracts intended to enable activities related to the provision of commercial railway passenger services in Sweden;










—


in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment is not, according to the Court, admissible or possible to annul the Decision in its entirety; and,










—


order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by not declaring the Utilities Directive inapplicable to procurement contracts intended to enable the provision of commercial railway passenger services on the Gothenburg — Malmö route.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the criteria for inapplicability of the Utilities Directive.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in the delineation of the relevant market(-s).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the provision of railway passenger services on the Stockholm-Gothenburg route is not directly exposed to competition.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to conclude that the entire Swedish market is exposed to competition within the meaning of Article 34 of the Utilities Directive.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements.






(1)  OJ 2020 L 262, p. 18
Case T-663/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — One Voice v ECHA
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal experimentation, chemical product, chemicals legislation, cosmetic product, interpretation of the law, product safety








C_2021009EN.01002802.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/28






Action brought on 30 October 2020 — One Voice v ECHA
(Case T-663/20)
(2021/C 9/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: One Voice (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Ghersi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


rule that the ECHA Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH Regulation;










—


rule that the ECHA Board of Appeal infringed the provisions of the REACH Regulation;
and therefore










—


annul the ECHA Board of Appeal’s decision of 18 August 2020 No A-009-2018;










—


order the defendant 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 an error in the assessment of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation (1) and the REACH Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of Article 18 of the Cosmetics Regulation when applying the REACH Regulation and acted contrary to the objective pursued by the Cosmetics Regulation in the area of animal testing. Lastly, the applicant takes the view that the ECHA does not have competence to give a binding interpretation of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Reach Regulation. In this respect, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Reach Regulation establishes the principle of the prohibition of animal testing, except where there is no alternative. No such exception was identified by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November on cosmetic products (OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59).

(2)  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 (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1 and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 176/2020 of 30 October 2020 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1751]
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, air traffic, airport, carrier, common transport policy, coronavirus disease, epidemic, revision of an agreement, transport capacity, transport planning




L_2023227EN.01004401.xml










14.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 227/44








            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 176/2020
of 30 October 2020
         
amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1751]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1477 of 14 October 2020 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 as regards the temporary extension of exceptional measures to address the consequences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following indent is added in point 64b (Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:






‘—



32020 R 1477: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1477 of 14 October 2020 (OJ L 338, 15.10.2020, p. 4).’






Article 2
The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1477 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 30 October 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 30 October 2020.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Sabine MONAUNI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 338, 15.10.2020, p. 4.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.
Case C-731/19: Order of the President of the Court of 30 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — KM v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: amendment of a law, criminal liability, death penalty, direct applicability, foreign national, illegal migration, national implementing measure, return migration








C_2021044EN.01004003.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/40






Order of the President of the Court of 30 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — KM v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Albacete
(Case C-731/19) (1)

(2021/C 44/53)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019