do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-610/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, investment promotion, ownership, payment, principle of legal certainty, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2021053EN.01002201.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
(Case C-610/20)
(2021/C 53/28)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?
In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?


(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 16 November 2020 2020/C 392/02
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020392EN.01000201.xml










17.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 November 2020
(2020/C 392/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1830 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,15 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4480 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89819 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2538 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0819 




ISK


Iceland króna


161,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,7310 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,353 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,16 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4692 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8728 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,1749 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6226 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5476 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1725 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7227 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5934 




KRW


South Korean won


1 310,50 




ZAR


South African rand


18,2346 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7945 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5670 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 680,89 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8710 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,983 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,5157 




THB


Thai baht


35,750 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3930 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9849 




INR


Indian rupee


88,0795 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-606/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, electronic device, liability, personal effects








C_2021062EN.01001302.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal
(Case C-606/20)
(2021/C 62/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EZ

Defendant: Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 20 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and entering into force on 28 June 2004, to be interpreted as meaning that the carrier is wholly or partly exonerated from its liability for loss of baggage pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention if a passenger transports new or as-new electronic items such as a compact camera, tablet (iPad) and wireless headphones in his checked baggage instead of his hand baggage without informing the carrier of this, even though it would have been possible and reasonable for the passenger to carry those electronic items with him in his hand baggage?


(1)  2001/539/EC: Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9974 — Groupe Crédit Agricole/Groupe Generali/Europ Assistance France/Viavita) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 392/05
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, provision of services, service industry








C_2020392EN.01000801.xml










17.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9974 — Groupe Crédit Agricole/Groupe Generali/Europ Assistance France/Viavita)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 392/05)

1.   
On 9 November 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:






—


Crédit Agricole S.A. (‘Crédit Agricole’, France);










—


Viavita SAS (‘Viavita’, France), currently owned and controlled by the Crédit Agricole group via the subsidiary Pacifica S.A. (‘Pacifica’, France);










—


Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. (‘Generali’, Italy);










—


Europ Assistance France S.A.S (‘EAF’, France), currently owned and controlled by the Generali group via the subsidiary Europ Assistance Holding S.A.S. (‘EAH’, France).




Crédit Agricole and Generali acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of EAF and Viavita (through EAF).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Crédit Agricole: banking, financial and insurance services;










—


for Viavita: providing domestic assistance and personal services;










—


for Generali : insurance;










—


for EAF: providing assistance (travel, motor vehicle, accommodation and domestic assistance) and personal services.






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.



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.9974 — Groupe Crédit Agricole/Groupe Generali/Europ Assistance France/Viavita
Observations can be sent to the Commission by e-mail, 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’).
Case C-612/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Happy Education SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, private education, provision of services








C_2021053EN.01002301.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Happy Education SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-612/20)
(2021/C 53/30)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Happy Education SRL

Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 132(1)(i), Article 133 and Article 134 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that educational services such as those contained in the national ‘Școala după școală’ [‘School after school’] programme can be brought within the concept of ‘services closely related to school education’, in the case where they are provided, in circumstances such as those obtaining in the main proceedings, by a private body, for commercial purposes and in the absence of a partnership concluded with an educational establishment?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the applicant be recognised as being an ‘organisation having similar objects’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the basis of the provisions of national law on authorisation of the activities identified by code CAEN 8559 — ‘Other forms of education (n.c.e.)’ by the Oficiul Național al Registrului Comerțului (National Trade Register Office) and with reference to the public-interest nature of the educational activities of the ‘school after school’ type, which are aimed at prevention of school leaving and early school leaving, improvement of school results, remedial education, accelerated learning, personal development and social inclusion?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7.
Case T-689/20: Action brought on 17 November 2020 — HB v EIB
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, budgetary resources, misuse of a right, termination of employment








C_2021009EN.01003201.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/32






Action brought on 17 November 2020 — HB v EIB
(Case T-689/20)
(2021/C 9/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary-General of the EIB of 27 April 2020, terminating her contract of employment and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the request for review; and;










—


order the defendant to pay 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 manifest error of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, insofar as:






—


terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground of budget restrictions was manifestly erroneous, and against JASPERS 2020 Specific Grant Agreement and the decision of Management Committee of the EIB of 2019;










—


terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground that the workload of JASPERS Smart Development Division, where the applicant was assigned, was lower than that of JASPERS other divisions and that, as a result, there was no business need for keeping the applicant in her position was manifestly erroneous; and










—


terminating the applicant’s contract went manifestly against the interest of the service, whether from an administrative, financial or workload perspective, and breached the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging arbitrariness and breach of the principle of sound administration, insofar as, in a context where the defendant argues that it must let go some of its staff because of budget restrictions, it goes against sound administration and is arbitrary not to establish a staff reduction plan, including notably a quantification of the number of positions to cut, and the objective criteria to select them, on the basis of which decisions regarding individual staff members could be taken, before adopting decisions of termination of contracts of employment, such as the one the applicant challenges.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act, insofar as the author of the contested decision, the Deputy Secretary-General of the EIB, did not have the powers to adopt it.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9976 — Silver Lake Partners/Engie/Hall Des Lumieres JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 408/03
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United States, arts, cultural event, cultural heritage, cultural organisation, economic concentration, management, marketing, merger control, museum








C_2020408EN.01000301.xml










27.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9976 — Silver Lake Partners/Engie/Hall Des Lumieres JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 408/03)
On 17 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 32020M9976. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10000 — PreZero International/SUEZ Nordic) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 398/01
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chain store, consumer goods, economic concentration, merger control, retail selling, supermarket, waste management








C_2020398EN.01000101.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10000 — PreZero International/SUEZ Nordic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 398/01)
On 17 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 32020M10000. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-608/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Interporto di Trieste SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, investment promotion, ownership, payment, principle of legal certainty, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2021053EN.01002002.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Interporto di Trieste SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
(Case C-608/20)
(2021/C 53/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Interporto di Trieste SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?
In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?


(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Case C-605/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, debt, maintenance, power plant, producer's liability, provision of services, purchase, tax exemption, tax relief, wind energy








C_2021044EN.01002601.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-605/20)
(2021/C 44/32)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Is an interpretation to the effect that repairs carried out during the ‘warranty period’ are regarded as exempt transactions only where they are made free of charge and in so far as they are tacitly included in the sale price of the product covered by the warranty, with the result that supplies of services which are made during the warranty period (whether or not they involve the use of materials) and which form the subject of invoices are to be regarded as subject to VAT, on the ground that they must necessarily be classified as supplies of services for consideration, compliant with EU law?










2.


Must the issuing of a debit note to a supplier of wind turbine components with a view to obtaining reimbursement of the costs which the purchaser of those products has incurred during the warranty period in replacing components (new imports of products from the supplier to which VAT was applied and which gave rise to a right to deduct input tax) and repairing them (by purchasing from third parties services on which VAT was charged), in the context of the supply to third parties of services in connection with the installation of a wind farm by that purchaser (a member of the same group [of companies] as the vendor, which is established in a third country), be classified as a mere transaction for passing on costs and, as such, exempt from VAT, or as a supply of services for consideration which must give rise to a charge to tax?
Case C-607/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 November 2020 — GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, bonus payment, provision of services, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2021028EN.01003002.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/30






Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 November 2020 — GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-607/20)
(2021/C 28/49)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred







1.


Does the issue of vouchers for third party retailers to employees by a taxable person as part of a recognition programme for high performing employees constitute a supply ‘for his private use or for that of his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business’ within the meaning of Article 26(1)(b) of the Principal VAT Directive (1)?










2.


Does it have any significance in answering question 1 that the taxable person has a business purpose for the issuing of the retail vouchers to staff?










3.


Does it have any significance in answering question 1 that the retail vouchers issued to staff members are for their own use and can be used for the staff members' private purposes?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).