do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
European Council Decision (EU) 2020/2049 of 10 December 2020 appointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: European Council
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the European Central Bank








L_2020420EN.01002201.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 420/22








            EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/2049
of 10 December 2020
         
appointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank


THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2),


Having regard to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (1),


Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),


Having regard to the opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),

Whereas:







(1)


Mr Yves MERSCH was appointed member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years as from 15 December 2012. His term of office expires on 14 December 2020.












(2)


It is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.












(3)


The European Council wishes to appoint Mr Frank ELDERSON, who, in its view, fulfils all the requirements set out in Article 283(2) of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Frank ELDERSON is hereby appointed a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years as from 15 December 2020.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 10 December 2020.


For the European Council


The President

C. MICHEL
            





(1)  
            OJ C 338, 12.10.2020, p. 2.

(2)  Opinion delivered on 23 November 2020 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)  Opinion delivered on 28 October 2020 (OJ C 372, 4.11.2020, p. 11).
Case C-488/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(m) — Exemption of ‘certain provisions of services closely linked to sport or physical education’ — Direct effect — Concept of ‘non-profit-making organisations’)
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, non-profit organisation, provision of services, sport, tax exemption








C_2021044EN.01000201.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.
(Case C-488/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(m) - Exemption of ‘certain provisions of services closely linked to sport or physical education’ - Direct effect - Concept of ‘non-profit-making organisations’)
(2021/C 44/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen

Defendant: Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not having direct effect, so that, if the legislation of a Member State which transposes that provision exempts from value added tax only a limited number of provisions of services closely linked to sport or physical education, that provision cannot be directly relied on before the national courts by a non-profit-making body to secure the exemption of other provisions closely linked to sport or physical education which that body provides to persons practising those activities and which that legislation does not exempt.










2.


Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘non-profit-making body’, within the meaning of that provision, constitutes an autonomous concept of EU law, which requires that, in the event that that organisation is dissolved, it may not distribute to its members any profits made by it which exceed the capital shares paid up by those members and the market value of the contributions in kind made by them.






(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
Case C-220/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano — Italy) — XX v OO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State of national health emergency — Continuity of judicial activity — Postponement of hearings — Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: adjournment, coronavirus disease, epidemic, legal hearing, state of emergency








C_2021079EN.01001701.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/17






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano — Italy) — XX v OO
(Case C-220/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State of national health emergency - Continuity of judicial activity - Postponement of hearings - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 79/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano — Italy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XX

Defendant: OO

Interveners: WW, XC, VS

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Giudice di pace di Lanciano (Justice of the Peace of Lanciano, Italy) by decision of 18 May 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Judgment of the court of 10 December 2020 in Case E-13/19 Hraðbraut ehf. v The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf. (Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Public service contract – Article 37 EEA – Notion of ‘services’ – Upper secondary education) 2021/C 113/06
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, educational institution, financial aid, public procurement, secondary education, services contract, tendering








C_2021113EN.01001101.xml










31.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/11






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 10 December 2020
in Case E-13/19
Hraðbraut ehf. v The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf.


(Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Public service contract – Article 37 EEA – Notion of ‘services’ – Upper secondary education)


(2021/C 113/06)
In Case E-13/19, Hraðbraut ehf. v The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf. – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Public Procurement Complaints Committee (Kærunefnd útboðsmála) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and in particular point (9) of Article 2(1) and Article 74 thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:
Contracts with characteristics such as those described in the request, which do not have as their object the provision of services within the meaning of Directive 2014/24/EU, do not constitute public service contracts within the meaning of point (9) of Article 2(1) of that directive.
Case C-774/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A. B., B. B. v Personal Exchange International Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 15(1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Concept of ‘consumer’ — Poker playing contract concluded online between a natural person and an organiser of games of chance — Natural person earning a living from online poker games — Knowledge of that person — Regularity of that activity)
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, economic activity, game of chance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, online game, provision of services








C_2021053EN.01001401.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/14






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A. B., B. B. v Personal Exchange International Limited
(Case C-774/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Poker playing contract concluded online between a natural person and an organiser of games of chance - Natural person earning a living from online poker games - Knowledge of that person - Regularity of that activity)
(2021/C 53/17)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A. B., B. B.

Defendant: Personal Exchange International Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person domiciled in a Member State who, first, has concluded with a company established in another Member State a contract to play poker on the internet, containing general terms and conditions specified by that company, and, second, has neither officially declared such activity nor offered it to third parties as a paid service does not lose the status of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, even if that person plays that game for a large number of hours per day, possesses extensive knowledge and receives substantial winnings from the game.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10046 — Deutsche Telekom/SK Telecom/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 434/03
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2020434EN.01000301.xml










15.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10046 — Deutsche Telekom/SK Telecom/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 434/03)
On 10 December 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 32020M10046. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-616/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — M.S., M.W., G.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Directive 2005/85/EC — Article 25(2) — Grounds for inadmissibility — Rejection by one Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the earlier grant to the applicant of subsidiary protection in another Member State — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013)
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, aid to refugees, asylum seeker, foreign national, refugee, right of asylum








C_2021044EN.01000702.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — M.S., M.W., G.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-616/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 25(2) - Grounds for inadmissibility - Rejection by one Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the earlier grant to the applicant of subsidiary protection in another Member State - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013)
(2021/C 44/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: M.S., M.W., G.S.

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(2) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which is subject to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, but which is not bound by Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in accordance with which an application for international protection is considered to be inadmissible where the applicant benefits from subsidiary protection status in another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9972 — Neste/Bunge Loders Croklaan Oils) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 436/03
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, South Holland, economic concentration, fossil fuel, harbour installation, merger control, motor fuel, provision of services, substitute fuel








C_2020436EN.01000301.xml










17.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9972 — Neste/Bunge Loders Croklaan Oils)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 436/03)
On 10 December 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 32020M9972. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.