do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-578/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 4 November 2020 — NM, NR, BA, XN, FA v Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA
Date: 2020-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, traveller








C_2021028EN.01002602.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 4 November 2020 — NM, NR, BA, XN, FA v Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA
(Case C-578/20)
(2021/C 28/42)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: NM, NR, BA, XN, FA

Defendant: Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA

Question referred

Must a strike by an airline’s aircraft maintenance staff be deemed to constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) when the airline has held meetings and negotiations in an unsuccessful attempt to avert the strike?


(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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2020/C 372/06
Date: 2020-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Portugal, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2020372EN.01001501.xml










4.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/15






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2020/C 372/06)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


15.10.2020




Duration


15.10.2020 - 31.12.2020




Member State


Portugal




Stock or Group of stocks


ALF/3X14-




Species


Alfonsinos (Beryx spp.)




Zone


Union and international waters of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14




Type(s) of fishing vessels


---




Reference number


29/TQ2025






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9861 — Unilabs/Medbase/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 379/03
Date: 2020-11-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Switzerland, artificial reproduction, economic concentration, health service, medical device, medical diagnosis, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, provision of services, therapeutics








C_2020379EN.01000901.xml










10.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9861 — Unilabs/Medbase/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 379/03)
On 4 November 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 32020M9861. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-576/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 November 2020 — CC v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
Date: 2020-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child care, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social-security harmonisation








C_2021035EN.01003101.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 November 2020 — CC v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
(Case C-576/20)
(2021/C 35/42)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: CC

Respondent: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 44(2) of 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 (1) to be interpreted as precluding child-raising periods spent in other Member States from being taken into account by a Member State competent to grant an old-age pension — under whose legislation the applicant for a pension has pursued an activity as an employed or self-employed person throughout her working life, with the exception of those child-raising periods — solely on the ground that the applicant for a pension was not pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person at the date when, under the legislation of that Member State, the child-raising period started to be taken into account for the child concerned?
If the first question is answered in the negative:










2.


Is the first clause of Article 44(2) of 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 to be interpreted as meaning that, under its legislation, the Member State which is competent under Title II of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems does not take child-raising periods into account generally, or that it does not take them into account only in a specific case?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 November 2020 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 November 2020 2020/C 372/04
Date: 2020-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020372EN.01001201.xml










4.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/12






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 November 2020
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 November 2020
(2020/C 372/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1702 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,56 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4462 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90042 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3835 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0709 




ISK


Iceland króna


163,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,0103 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,913 




HUF


Hungarian forint


363,82 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5680 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8675 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9840 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6406 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5385 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0694 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7531 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5931 




KRW


South Korean won


1 323,74 




ZAR


South African rand


18,7681 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8198 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5595 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 946,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8634 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,584 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,8975 




THB


Thai baht


36,329 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6742 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,7581 




INR


Indian rupee


87,0695 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-577/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2020 — A
Date: 2020-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, discrimination on the basis of nationality, freedom to provide services, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment, vocational education








C_2021062EN.01001301.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2020 — A
(Case C-577/20)
(2021/C 62/14)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A

Other party: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Questions referred







1.


Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union and Directive 2005/36/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State must assess an applicant’s right to pursue a regulated profession in accordance with Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant case-law (in particular, judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89 (2), Vlassopoulou, and judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14 (3), Brouillard) even though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC, and, under those conditions, the host Member State must permit the pursuit of a profession by an applicant who holds evidence of formal qualifications from a Member State in which the profession is not regulated, but who does not satisfy the requirement for the pursuit of the profession laid down in that provision of the directive?










2.


If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: In the light of the statements made in Case C-298/14, Brouillard (paragraph 55 of the judgment) concerning the exclusive criteria for assessing the equivalence of certificates, does EU law preclude the competent authority of the host Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, from also basing its assessment of the equivalence of training on information other than that obtained from the training provider or the authorities of the other Member State regarding the precise content of the training and the manner in which it is implemented?






(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 7 May 1991 (Case C-340/89, Irène Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg, ECLI:EU:C:1991:193).

(3)  Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (Case C-298/14, Alain Laurent Brouillard v Jury du concours de recrutement de référendaires près la Cour de cassation and Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:2015:652).