do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-661/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — NV v eu-LISA
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, duties of civil servants, indemnification, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021019EN.01006001.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/60






Action brought on 30 October 2020 — NV v eu-LISA
(Case T-661/20)
(2021/C 19/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: NV (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 3 February 2020 insofar as it imposes a reprimand on the applicant;










—


if need be, annul the decision of 3 August 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 9 April 2020;










—


order financial compensation for non-material harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at the sum of EUR 5 000;










—


order reimbursement of the incurred costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, a plea of illegality in relation to the decision of the Management Board (2015-014) on administrative inquiries of 28 January 2015.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence together with violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard and furthermore breach of the duty of confidentiality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 12, 12a, 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations, together with breach of the principle of good administration and furthermore manifest errors of assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on disciplinary proceedings, together with violation of the duty of care.
Case C-573/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 30 October 2020 — Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, VAT, consumer, equal treatment, health care, health care profession, national law, provision of services, tax, tax relief








C_2021035EN.01002701.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 30 October 2020 — Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-573/20)
(2021/C 35/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Casa di Cura Città di Parma SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Questions referred







1.


[Is there] a conflict between national legislation and [EU] law and, in particular, between Article 19(5) and Article 19bis of Presidential Decree 633/72 (the Italian national legislation which governs the mechanism for calculating the non-deductible proportion of VAT), on the one hand, and Article 17(2)(a) of Directive [77/388/EC] of 17 May 1977, (1) on the other?










2.


[Is] the difference in treatment between Italian healthcare professionals, deemed to be ‘final consumers’ (liable to VAT) and healthcare professionals of other Member States of the European Union (such as Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, France and Spain), deemed to be ‘intermediary operators’ (with the right to deduct VAT), [compatible with EU law]?










3.


[Is there] unequal treatment as regards the rules on VAT between the various Member States of the European Union, given that unlike the situation in Italy where healthcare services are exempt from VAT, in other Member States of the European Union (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, France and Spain) the same healthcare services are subject to VAT, with the result that different rates of VAT and, therefore, a different right to deduct are applied to the same healthcare services?










4.


[Is] the inequality between Italian healthcare professionals (including Casa di Cura Città di Parma) and the professionals of other Member States of the European Union (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, France and Spain) — in that the healthcare services provided by the latter are subject to value added tax and, as a result, unlike Italian healthcare professionals, they have the corresponding right to deduct and/or to reimbursement of VAT paid on purchases — [compatible with EU law]?’






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 29 October 2020 2020/C 366/07
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020366EN.01001101.xml










30.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/11






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 October 2020
(2020/C 366/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1704 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,09 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4462 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90430 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4225 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0684 




ISK


Iceland króna


165,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,1495 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,368 




HUF


Hungarian forint


368,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6225 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8751 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,7418 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6673 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5658 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0735 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7677 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5988 




KRW


South Korean won


1 326,92 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2322 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8531 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5730 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 306,12 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8648 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,685 




RUB


Russian rouble


93,0481 




THB


Thai baht


36,598 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,7680 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,0028 




INR


Indian rupee


87,0865 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-827/19: Order of the General Court of 30 October 2020 — Gáspár v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Transfer of national pension rights — Complaint brought after the expiry of the three-month period laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — No excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2021019EN.01004901.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/49






Order of the General Court of 30 October 2020 — Gáspár v Commission
(Case T-827/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Transfer of national pension rights - Complaint brought after the expiry of the three-month period laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - No excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 19/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Norbert Gáspár (Mensdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 23 May 2018 confirming the transfer to the pension scheme of the EU institutions of pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into the service of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Norbert Gáspár shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Council Decision of 30 October 2020 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 9 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 2020/C 372 I/01
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, European Union Solidarity Fund, amending budget, commitment of expenditure, coronavirus disease, draft budget (EU), emergency aid, financial year, general budget (EU), natural disaster




CI2020372EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 372/1






COUNCIL DECISION
of 30 October 2020
adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 9 of the European Union for the financial year 2020
(2020/C 372 I/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union's budget for the financial year 2020 was definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2),










—


on 9 October 2020, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 9 to the general budget for the financial year 2020,










—


it is important to enable a swift adoption of draft amending budget No 9/2020, having regard also to the COVID-19 situation, which is already putting increased pressure on those Member States' finances, to provide assistance from the European Union Solidarity Fund to the Member States concerned, struck by natural disasters or affected by a major public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article
The Council's position on draft amending budget No 9 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 was adopted on 30 October 2020.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/


Done at Brussels, 30 October 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH




(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 57, 27.2.2020, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10003 — DWS/Vertex Bioenergy) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 375/04
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Spain, biofuel, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020375EN.01004301.xml










6.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/43






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10003 — DWS/Vertex Bioenergy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 375/04)
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 32020M10003. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-165/20: Action brought on 30 October 2020 — JC v EUCAP Somalia
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Somalia, dismissal, fact-finding mission, interest, labour law, national law, pay, rights of the defence, work contract








C_2021009EN.01002301.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/23






Action brought on 30 October 2020 — JC v EUCAP Somalia
(Case T-165/20)
(2021/C 9/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JC (represented by: A. Van Himst, lawyer)

Defendant: EUCAP Somalia (Mogadishu, Somalia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 4 November 2019, issued by EUCAP SOMALIA, through which the employment relationship between the applicant and EUCAP SOMALIA was terminated;










—


annul the decision of 3 December 2019, issued by EUCAP SOMALIA, through which the employment relationship between the applicant and EUCAP SOMALIA was terminated;










—


if necessary, annul the decision of 24 January 2020 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision to terminate the employment relationship;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s salary retroactively until the definitive, proper and lawful end date of the contractual relationship;










—


order the defendant to pay interest on the amounts due at the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, concerning the fact that the first notification was addressed to the applicant only through the decision dismissing his appeal and alleging:






—


that the notification of 4 November 2019 had no effect or, at least, no retroactive effect;










—


failure to implement the formal pre-litigation procedure and infringement of Article 21 of that contract in so far as the applicant was not heard by the Deputy Head of Mission before a decision was adopted concerning the rejection of his internal appeal.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 of the employment contract, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the defendant failed to state reasons for its dismissal decision (decisions).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 of the employment contract and an error of law in the application of Article 17(2) of the employment contract, in that the defendant should have given at least one month’s notice.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Law of 3 July 1978 on Employment Contracts under Belgian law invoked by the defendant as applying to the contract.
Case C-569/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against IR
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge, criminal proceedings, lawyer, legal hearing, offence, penalty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021028EN.01002401.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against IR
(Case C-569/20)
(2021/C 28/38)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

IR

Questions referred

Are Article 8(2)(b) in conjunction with recitals 36 to 39 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and Article 4а(1)(b) in conjunction with recitals 7 to 10 of Framework Decision 2009/299 to be interpreted as covering a case in which the accused person was informed of the list of charges against him, in its original version, and then, due to the fact that he has fled, objectively cannot be informed of the trial and is defended by a lawyer appointed ex officio with whom he has no contact?
If this is answered in the negative: Is a national provision (Article 423(1) and (5) of the NPK), pursuant to which no provision is made for any legal protection against investigative measures carried out in absentia and against a conviction handed down in absentia where the accused person, after having been informed of the original list of charges, is in hiding and therefore could not be informed of the date and place of the trial or of the consequences of non-appearance, consistent with Article 9 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 and Article 4а(3) in conjunction with Article 4a(1)(d) of Framework Decision 2009/299?
If this is answered in the negative: Does Article 9 of Directive 2016/343 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter have direct effect?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10003 — Alcentra/Brait/New Look Retail Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 374/01
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, United Kingdom, clothing industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, holding company, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2020374EN.01000101.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10003 — Alcentra/Brait/New Look Retail Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 374/01)
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 32020M10003. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/162/20 (OJ C 358 A, 26.10.2020)
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), job vacancy, managing director




CA2020366EN.01000101.xml










30.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 366/1






Corrigendum to Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/162/20
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 358 A of 26 October 2020
)
(2020/C 366 A/01)
On page 1, under ‘GENERAL INFORMATION’, ‘Department’:







for:





‘DG RELEX: Foreign Affairs, Enlargement and Civil Protection’,













read:





‘DG RELEX: External Relations’.






On page 1, under ‘We are’, second paragraph:







for:





‘Directorate-General “Foreign Affairs, Enlargement and Civil Protection” (DG RELEX) currently comprises 2 directorates: RELEX.1 dealing with Trade, Development, Security and Coordination, and RELEX.2, dealing with Enlargement, Middle East and North Africa, Civil Protection.’,













read:





‘Directorate-General “External Relations” (DG RELEX) currently comprises 2 directorates: RELEX.1 dealing with Trade, Development and Security, and RELEX.2, dealing with Neighbourhood Policy and Crisis Response.’.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures 2020/C 366/10
Date: 2020-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, sweetener








C_2020366EN.01002401.xml










30.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/24






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 366/10)

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)





Aspartame


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China
(OJ L 204, 29.7.2016, p. 92)


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