do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 November 2020 2020/C 383/06
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020383EN.01000801.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 November 2020
(2020/C 383/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1791 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4459 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89765 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1825 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0805 




ISK


Iceland króna


162,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,7658 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,465 




HUF


Hungarian forint


355,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4886 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8683 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,1207 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6263 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5443 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1429 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7196 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5921 




KRW


South Korean won


1 314,39 




ZAR


South African rand


18,4908 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8105 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5715 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 747,23 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8703 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,175 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,2463 




THB


Thai baht


35,715 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3638 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2625 




INR


Indian rupee


88,0660 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9892 — Leonardo/Thales/VSB) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 383/08
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, automation, defence policy, economic concentration, energy industry, land transport, logistics, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2020383EN.01001001.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9892 — Leonardo/Thales/VSB)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 383/08)






1.


On 30 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:






—


Leonardo S.p.A. (‘Leonardo’, Italy),










—


Thales S.A. (‘Thales’, France) and










—


Vitrociset Space Business (‘VSB’, Italy) belonging to Vitrociset S.p.A. (‘Vitrociset’, Italy), controlled by Leonardo.




Leonardo and Thales acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of VSB.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Leonardo: active in aerospace, defence and security, energy, communications, transportation and automation services at worldwide level.










—


Thales: active in aerospace, space, ground transportation, defence and security, and digital identity services at worldwide level.










—


VSB: active in the provision of technical and engineering services, manufacturing, integration, operational management, maintenance, and logistics for the management of space systems.














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.9892 — Leonardo/Thales/VSB
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-571/17: Order of the General Court of 13 November 2020 — UG v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Termination with notice — Agreement on the quantified amount of compensation for damages — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, damages, full-time employment, indemnification, labour dispute, parental leave, servant (EU), staff regulations, termination of employment, union representative








C_2021019EN.01004802.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/48






Order of the General Court of 13 November 2020 — UG v Commission
(Case T-571/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Agreement on the quantified amount of compensation for damages - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 19/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 17 October 2016 by which the Commission’s Office for ‘Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg’ (OIL) terminated the applicant’s contract of employment on the basis of Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union with effect from 20 August 2017 and, second, to obtain compensation for the material damage that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision as well as for the non-material damage that she allegedly suffered as a result of the degrading treatment to which she was subjected as a result of her trade union activity and the taking of her parental leave

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the monetary compensation resulting from the decision of 17 October 2016 by which the European Commission’s Office for ‘Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg’ (OIL) terminated UG’s employment contract.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay one-half of the costs of UG. UG shall bear one-half of her own costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case C-599/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 November 2020 — UAB ‘Baltic Master’ v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Taric, commercial transaction, customs valuation, originating product, trade relations








C_2021035EN.01003602.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 November 2020 — UAB ‘Baltic Master’ v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-599/20)
(2021/C 35/49)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UAB ‘Baltic Master’

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 143(1)(b), (e) or (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the buyer and the seller are deemed to be related persons in cases where, as in the present case, in the absence of documents (official data) proving business partnership or control, the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of transactions are, however, on the basis of objective evidence, characteristic, not of the performance of economic activities under normal conditions, but rather of cases in which (1) there are particularly close business relations based on a high level of mutual trust between the parties to the transaction, or (2) one party to the transaction controls the other or both parties to the transaction are controlled by a third party?










2.


Must Article 31(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 be interpreted as prohibiting determination of the customs value on the basis of information contained in a national database relating to one customs value of goods which have the same origin and which, although not similar, within the meaning of Article 142(1)(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, are ascribed to the same TARIC heading?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
Case C-595/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2020 — UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG and VF
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arboriculture, commercial contract, harvest, private international law, tenant farming, transfer of property, tree








C_2021035EN.01003302.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2020 — UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG and VF
(Case C-595/20)
(2021/C 35/46)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UE

Respondents: ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF

Question referred

Is Article 6(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the purchase of teak and balsa trees between an undertaking and a consumer, which is intended to confer ownership of the trees, which are then managed, harvested and sold for profit, and which includes for that purpose a lease agreement and a service agreement, is to be regarded as ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.
Case T-669/20: Action brought on 13 November 2020 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO (PLUSCARD)
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, electronic money, financial services, information storage and retrieval, payment system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01005701.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/57






Action brought on 13 November 2020 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO (PLUSCARD)
(Case T-669/20)
(2021/C 28/86)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH (Saarbrücken, Germany) (represented by: M. Dury, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PLUSCARD — Application for registration No 1 494 424

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2020 in Case R 638/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that:






—


the reasons given by EUIPO and the conclusions drawn by EUIPO shall be revisited;










—


the registration of the sign PLUSCARD should therefore be granted as applied for, for all classes, including classes applied for;










—


furthermore, due to the distinctive language barriers complicating the resolution of this case, the summoning of oral proceedings is requested and encouraged.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-681/20: Action brought on 13 November 2020 — OC v EEAS
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, data protection, duties of civil servants, personal data, professional ethics, protection of privacy, rights of the defence, whistleblowing








C_2021019EN.01006501.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/65






Action brought on 13 November 2020 — OC v EEAS
(Case T-681/20)
(2021/C 19/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
accordingly,










—


annul the decision of 27 January 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s claim for compensation dated 27 September 2019;










—


if needed, annul the decision of 4 August 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint of 17 April 2020;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material and financial damage incurred, the latter being assessed respectively, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20,000 and EUR 580,889;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 3.3 of the Charter of the Tasks and Responsibilities of EEAS Imprest Administrators, infringement of Article 3 of the Code of Professional Standards for EEAS Financial Audit Staff and infringement of Article 2 of Decision PROC HR(2011)008 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.










2.


Second plea, alleging breach of the duty of care. The applicant submits in particular in that regard that her transfer was decided without observing the principle of equivalence of posts and that, given the circumstances of the case, her transfer was not justified by the interests of the service.










3.


Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons, as well as infringement of the protection of personal data and of the right to respect for private and family life.
Case C-763/18: Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 13 November 2020 — Wallapop, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Unipreus, S.L.
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021044EN.01003803.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/38






Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 13 November 2020 — Wallapop, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Unipreus, S.L.
(Case C-763/18) (1)

(2021/C 44/45)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2020/C 383/05
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, arms trade, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2020383EN.01000701.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/7






Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(2020/C 383/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Thomas LUBANGA, person appearing in Annex I to Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP (1) and Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (2) imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council intends to update the entry of the above-mentioned person in accordance with the amendments of 2 November 2020 by the United Nations Security Council Committee (UNSC) established pursuant to resolution 1533 (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo (3).
If the person concerned wishes to present observations before the entries in the above-mentioned Annexes are amended on the basis of the updated information by the UNSC Committee, they should be submitted by 27 November 2020 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


(1)  OJ L 336, 21.12.2010, p. 30.

(2)  OJ L 193, 23.7.2005, p. 1.

(3)  See press release of 2 November 2020 in UN document SC/14344: https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sc14344.doc.htm
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union 2020/C 383/07
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, personal effects, plastics








C_2020383EN.01000901.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/9






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2020/C 383/07)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 210:



Heading 4202



The following text is added:


‘This heading also includes small bags consisting of sheeting of plastics with a closing system (for example, a zipper) designed for prolonged use. They generally have reinforced edges (for example, of plastics or of textiles) or stitched seams. They can be used, for example, as a toilet bag, pencil bag or document bag and may be equipped with a handle or a hanging loop.
Examples of such bags include:



This heading does not include small, simple bags consisting of sheeting of plastics with a closure, not designed for prolonged use. Those bags are simply sealed at the edges, without reinforcements (for example, there are no reinforced edges of textiles or plastics, nor stitched seams). They may have a fold at the bottom and/or the sides and they generally have a simple plastic “zip-lock” type closure with a slider. They may be equipped with a small handle or a hanging loop. They are to be classified according to their constituent material (classification under Chapter 39).
Examples of such bags include:



’



(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.
Case C-598/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 November 2020 — AS Pilsētas zemes dienests v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
Date: 2020-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, plot, property leasing, tax exemption








C_2021035EN.01003601.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 November 2020 — AS Pilsētas zemes dienests v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
(Case C-598/20)
(2021/C 35/48)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AS Pilsētas zemes dienests

Institution from which the contested measure emanated: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred







1.


Must the exemption from value added tax for the leasing of immovable property provided for in Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies to the leasing of land in the case of compulsory leasing?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative — that is to say that the leasing of land in the case of compulsory leasing is exempt from value added tax — then, where all other instances of the leasing of land are subject to value added tax, is such an exemption not contrary to one of the principles of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, namely the principle of neutrality of value added tax?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.