do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-610/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — ZR v EUIPO (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition — Composition of the selection board — Stability)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), intellectual property, recruitment








C_2021072EN.01001901.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/19






Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — ZR v EUIPO
(Case T-610/18) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 - Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Composition of the selection board - Stability)
(2021/C 72/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 1 December 2017 of the selection board for Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of intellectual property, not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up with a view to the recruitment of administrators by EUIPO, second, of the decision of that selection board of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review and, third, of the decision of EUIPO of 27 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 7 March 2018, by which the selection board for Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 refused, after review, to place ZR on the reserve list for the recruitment of grade AD 6 administrators in the field of intellectual property;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Case T-824/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — RY v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract of indefinite duration pursuant to Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Article 266 TFEU — Right to be heard — New termination decision)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: full-time employment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of employment








C_2021072EN.01002202.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/22






Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — RY v Commission
(Case T-824/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Termination of a contract of indefinite duration pursuant to Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Right to be heard - New termination decision)
(2021/C 72/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10 April 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract of indefinite duration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders RY to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 January 2021 2021/C 14/02
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021014EN.01000201.xml










13.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 January 2021
(2021/C 14/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2161 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4385 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89440 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0878 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0812 




ISK


Iceland króna


156,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3765 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,190 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,66 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5248 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8713 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,1050 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5742 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5510 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4314 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6940 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6146 




KRW


South Korean won


1 336,38 




ZAR


South African rand


18,7269 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8576 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5805 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 201,73 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9343 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,434 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,0537 




THB


Thai baht


36,641 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6592 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,3010 




INR


Indian rupee


89,0915 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-478/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Bezouaoui and HB Consultant v Commission (State aid — Construction plant driving safety training — Reimbursement of training by State-authorised collecting bodies (Organismes paritaires de collecte agréés, OPCAs) — Decision finding no State aid — Concept of State aid — Whether imputable to the State — Public control of resources)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, construction equipment, control of State aid, driving instruction, professional qualifications, vocational training








C_2021072EN.01001801.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/18






Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Bezouaoui and HB Consultant v Commission
(Case T-478/18) (1)

(State aid - Construction plant driving safety training - Reimbursement of training by State-authorised collecting bodies (Organismes paritaires de collecte agréés, OPCAs) - Decision finding no State aid - Concept of State aid - Whether imputable to the State - Public control of resources)
(2021/C 72/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Hacène Bezouaoui (Avanne, France) and HB Consultant (Beure, France) (represented by: J.-F. Henrotte and N. Neyrinck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2018) 2075 final of 10 April 2018 on Case SA.46897 (2018/NN) — France presumed aid in respect of the funding of training for the certificat d’aptitude à la conduite d’engins de chantier en sécurité (Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate, CACES).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HB Consultant and Mr Hacène Bezouaoui to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Case C-631/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Market for financial instruments — Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial instrument, financial legislation, infringement of EU law, investment company, national implementing measure, provision of services








C_2021072EN.01000301.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/3






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-631/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Market for financial instruments - Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 - Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures)
(2021/C 72/03)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


By failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 of 7 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to safeguarding of financial instruments and funds belonging to clients, product governance obligations and the rules applicable to the provision or reception of fees, commissions or any monetary or non-monetary benefits, or by failing to notify those measures to the European Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of Delegated Directive 2017/593;










2.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case C-20/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 13 January 2021 — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, reservation, traveller








C_2021098EN.01001301.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 13 January 2021 — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines
(Case C-20/21)
(2021/C 98/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: JW, HD, XS

Defendant: LOT Polish Airlines

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(b) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance, within the meaning of that provision, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs, can also be the place of arrival of the first leg of the journey where transport on those legs of the journey is performed by two separate air carriers and the claim for compensation brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) arises from the delay of the first leg of the journey and is brought against the operating air carrier of that first leg?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

(2)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-873/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Multi-Service v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision annulling the registration of an undertaking — Failure to provide the required information)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fluorine, greenhouse gas, information system, market approval, reduction of gas emissions








C_2021072EN.01002401.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/24






Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Multi-Service v Commission
(Case T-873/19) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision annulling the registration of an undertaking - Failure to provide the required information)
(2021/C 72/35)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Multi-Service S.A. (Kwidzyn, Poland) (represented by: P. Jankowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker, M. Jáuregui Gómez and M. Rynkowski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2019) 6103796 of 3 October 2019, by which the Commission annulled the applicant’s registration in the registry established and managed by the Commission pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Multi-Service S.A. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case C-27/21 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, claim, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial solvency, indemnification, shareholder








C_2021502EN.01001102.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/11






Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB
(Case C-27/21 P)
(2021/C 502/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board
By order of 30 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet to bear their own costs.
Case T-548/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Helbert v EUIPO (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition — Composition of the selection board — Stability — Liability)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), indemnification, intellectual property, recruitment








C_2021072EN.01001802.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/18






Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Helbert v EUIPO
(Case T-548/18) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 - Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Composition of the selection board - Stability - Liability)
(2021/C 72/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the decision of 1 December 2017 of the selection board for Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of intellectual property not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up with a view to the recruitment of administrators by EUIPO and, second, of the decision of that selection board of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review in its final form following EUIPO’s decision of 8 June 2018 rejecting his complaint, and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 7 March 2018, by which the selection board for Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 refused, after review, to place Mr Lars Helbert on the reserve list for the recruitment of grade AD 6 administrators in the field of intellectual property;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10030 — Ube Industries/Mitsubishi Materials Corporation/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 21/01
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, chemical industry, construction equipment, economic concentration, electronics industry, energy industry, environmental industry, merger control, metallurgical industry, waste recycling








C_2021021EN.01000101.xml










20.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10030 — Ube Industries/Mitsubishi Materials Corporation/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 21/01)
On 13 January 2021, 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 32021M10030. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-189/20: Order of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Chiquita Brands v EUIPO — Fyffes International (HOYA)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, tropical fruit








C_2021079EN.01003801.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/38






Order of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Chiquita Brands v EUIPO — Fyffes International (HOYA)
(Case T-189/20) (1)

(2021/C 79/48)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-628/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Market in financial instruments — Directives 2014/65/EU and (EU) 2016/1034 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum)
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial instrument, financial legislation, investment company, national implementing measure, provision of services, sanction (EU)








C_2021072EN.01000201.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/2






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-628/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Market in financial instruments - Directives 2014/65/EU and (EU) 2016/1034 - Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures - Article 260(3) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a lump sum)
(2021/C 72/02)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: T. Mihelič Žitko, A. Dežman Mušič and N. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: S. Eisenberg, acting as Agent), Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent), Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by failing to notify to the European Commission, by the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, as amended by Directive (EU) 2016/1034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2016, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93 of Directive 2014/65, as amended by Directive 2016/1034;










2.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 750 000;










3.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










4.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-19/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2021 — I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, appeal, family migration, family reunification, foreign national, jurisdiction, right of asylum








C_2021128EN.01001401.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2021 — I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-19/21)
(2021/C 128/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: I, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation (1) be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State, whether or not in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Article 8 (or Article 9 or 10) of the Dublin Regulation, or the applicant’s family member referred to in Article 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative and Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation does not provide a basis for an effective remedy, must Article 47 of the Charter — read in conjunction with the fundamental right to family unity and the best interests of the child (as laid down in Articles 8 to 10 and recital 19 of the Dublin Regulation) — be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation or the member of the applicant’s family referred to in Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?










3.


If Question 2 or Question 2 (second part) is answered in the affirmative, in what way and by which Member State should the requested Member State’s decision to refuse the request and the right to appeal against it to be communicated to the applicant or the applicant’s family member?






(1)  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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).