do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
European Parliament decision of 24 November 2020 proposing the appointment of Julia Laffranque to the panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2020/2238(INS))
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, appointment of members, committee (EU)








C_2021425EN.01016101.xml










20.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/161






P9_TA(2020)0310
Appointment of Julia Laffranque to the panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
European Parliament decision of 24 November 2020 proposing the appointment of Julia Laffranque to the panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2020/2238(INS))
(2021/C 425/19)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the second paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Rule 128 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs (B9-0368/2020),










A.


whereas Julia Laffranque meets the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;












1.


Proposes that Julia Laffranque be appointed to the panel;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the President of the Court of Justice.
Annual Report 2019 2020/C 400/05
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: European Ombudsman
Subjects: European Ombudsman, activity report, exchange of information








C_2020400EN.01000801.xml










24.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/8






Annual Report 2019
(2020/C 400/05)
On 5 May 2020, the European Ombudsman sent her Annual Report for the year 2019 to the President of the European Parliament.
The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman’s website in all 24 official languages at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/activities/annualreports.faces
Case C-445/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Public-service broadcaster — Article 106(2) TFEU — Services of general economic interest — Aid compatible with the internal market — Article 108(3) TFEU — Notification — Failure to notify — Recipient’s obligation to pay interest in respect of the period during which that aid was unlawful — Calculation of interest — Amounts to be included)
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, broadcasting, control of State aid, interest, public sector, reimbursement of aid, services of general interest








C_2021035EN.01001501.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/15






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark
(Case C-445/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Public-service broadcaster - Article 106(2) TFEU - Services of general economic interest - Aid compatible with the internal market - Article 108(3) TFEU - Notification - Failure to notify - Recipient’s obligation to pay interest in respect of the period during which that aid was unlawful - Calculation of interest - Amounts to be included)
(2021/C 35/19)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Defendants: TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation incumbent on national courts to order the recipient of State aid implemented in breach of that provision to pay illegality interest in respect of that aid also applies where, by its final decision, the European Commission finds that that aid is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU.










2.


Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation which is incumbent on national courts to order the recipient of State aid implemented in breach of that provision to pay illegality interest in respect of that aid applies also to aid which that recipient has transferred to affiliated undertakings and to aid received by it from a publicly controlled undertaking.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case C-624/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2020 — E.K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, dependant, family migration, foreign national, residence permit








C_2021128EN.01000701.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2020 — E.K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-624/20)
(2021/C 128/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.K.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred







1.


Is it within the competence of the Member States to determine whether the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU is in itself of a temporary or a non-temporary nature, or should it be interpreted in conformity with Union law?










2.


If interpretation must be in conformity with Union law, does a distinction [then] exist, when applying Directive 2003/109/EC, (1) between the various dependents’ residence rights to which third-country nationals are entitled on the basis of Union law, including the dependent’s right of residence granted to a family member of a Union citizen on the basis of the Residence Directive and the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU?










3.


Is the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU, which by its nature depends on the existence [of] a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the Union citizen and is therefore finite, of a temporary nature?










4.


If the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU is of a temporary nature, must Article 3(2)(e) of the Directive [then] be interpreted as precluding national legislation which only excludes residence permits issued under national law from acquiring long-term residence status within the meaning of the Directive?






(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10012 — Hg/KKR/Citation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 415/04
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: approval, compliance audit, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, outsourcing, provision of services








C_2020415EN.01001101.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/11






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10012 — Hg/KKR/Citation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 415/04)
On 24 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 32020M10012. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2020/1774 of 24 November 2020 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (EUAM RCA/1/2020)
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Central African Republic, EU civilian mission








L_2020398EN.01002201.xml










27.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 398/22








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1774
of 24 November 2020
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (EUAM RCA/1/2020)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2110 of 9 December 2019 on the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2019/2110, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 17 December 2019, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/2189 (2), appointing Mr Paulo SOARES as Head of Mission of EUAM RCA from 9 December 2019 to 8 December 2020.












(3)


On 30 July 2020, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/1131 (3), which launched EUAM RCA on 9 August 2020.












(4)


The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Paulo SOARES as Head of Mission of EUAM RCA from 9 December 2020 to 8 December 2021,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Paulo SOARES as Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) is hereby extended until 8 December 2021.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 9 December 2020.




Done at Brussels, 24 November 2020.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 318, 10.12.2019, p. 141.

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2019/2189 of 17 December 2019 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (EUAM RCA/1/2019) (OJ L 330, 20.12.2019, p. 51).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1131 of 30 July 2020 launching the European Union CSDP Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUAM RCA) (OJ L 247, 31.7.2020, p. 16).
Case C-59/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG v Booking.com BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Article 7, points 1 and 2 — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Action seeking an injunction against commercial practices considered to be contrary to competition law — Allegation of abuse of a dominant position occurring in commercial practices covered by contractual provisions — Online accommodation booking platform booking.com)
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dominant position, hotel industry, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, liability, reservation








C_2021035EN.01000602.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/6






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG v Booking.com BV
(Case C-59/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction - Article 7, points 1 and 2 - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Action seeking an injunction against commercial practices considered to be contrary to competition law - Allegation of abuse of a dominant position occurring in commercial practices covered by contractual provisions - Online accommodation booking platform booking.com)
(2021/C 35/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Booking.com BV

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying to an action seeking an injunction against certain practices implemented in the context of the contractual relationship between the applicant and the defendant, based on an allegation of abuse of a dominant position by the latter in breach of competition law.


(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2020/C 400/06
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2020400EN.01000901.xml










24.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/9






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2020/C 400/06)
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


1.10.2020




Duration


1.10.2020 - 31.12.2020




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


ANF/*8ABDE (special condition to ANF/07.)




Species


Anglerfish (Lophiidae)




Zone


8a, 8b, 8d and 8e




Type(s) of fishing vessels


---




Reference number


21/TQ123






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 November 2020 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (09573/1/2020 — C9-0355/2020 — 2018/0089(COD))
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on Transport and Tourism, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: collective interest, consumer policy, consumer protection, indemnification, infringement of EU law, injunction, single market








C_2021425EN.01017001.xml










20.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/170






P9_TA(2020)0316
Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers ***II
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 November 2020 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (09573/1/2020 — C9-0355/2020 — 2018/0089(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)
(2021/C 425/25)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council position at first reading (09573/1/2020 — C9-0355/2020),










—


having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 20 September 2018 (1),










—


having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 10 October 2018 (2),










—


having regard to its position at first reading (3) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0184),










—


having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0224/2020),












1.


Approves the Council position at first reading;












2.


Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;












3.


Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;












4.


Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;












5.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 66.

(2)  OJ C 461, 21.12.2018, p. 232.

(3)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0222.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9989 — BB Holding Investment/Duferdofin-Nucor) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 422/07
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, holding company, investment company, iron and steel industry, merger control, waterway transport








C_2020422EN.01000701.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/7






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9989 — BB Holding Investment/Duferdofin-Nucor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 422/07)
On 24 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 32020M9989. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-510/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against AZ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(2) — Concept of ‘executing judicial authority’ — Article 27(2) — Rule of speciality — Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) — Derogation — Prosecution for an ‘offence other’ than that for which surrendered — Consent of the executing judicial authority — Consent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the executing Member State)
Date: 2020-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, enforcement of ruling, offence, public prosecution, public prosecutor's department, rights of the defence








C_2021035EN.01001601.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/16






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against AZ
(Case C-510/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(2) - Concept of ‘executing judicial authority’ - Article 27(2) - Rule of speciality - Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) - Derogation - Prosecution for an ‘offence other’ than that for which surrendered - Consent of the executing judicial authority - Consent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the executing Member State)
(2021/C 35/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main criminal proceedings

AZ

Interveners: Openbaar Ministerie, YU, ZV

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of ‘executing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, constitutes an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted to the effect that it covers the authorities of a Member State which, without necessarily being judges or courts, participate in the administration of criminal justice in that Member State, acting independently in the exercise of the responsibilities inherent in the execution of a European arrest warrant and which exercise their responsibilities under a procedure which complies with the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection;










2.


Article 6(2) and Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the public prosecutor of a Member State who, although he or she participates in the administration of justice, may receive in exercising his or her decision-making power an instruction in a specific case from the executive, does not constitute an ‘executing judicial authority’ within the meaning of those provisions.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.