do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-87/21: Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Condor Flugdienst v Commission
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, air transport, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, single market








C_2021110EN.01003701.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/37






Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Condor Flugdienst v Commission
(Case T-87/21)
(2021/C 110/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Kelsterbach, Germany) (represented by: A. Israel, J. Lang and M. Negro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 that the defendant infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) (b) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.
Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission 2021/C 49/02
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: Dispute Settlement Body, international cooperation, international trade, settlement of disputes, sustainable development, trade dispute








C_2021049EN.01000201.xml










12.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/2






Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
(2021/C 49/02)
The Union remains committed to a multilateral approach to international dispute settlement, rules-based trade, and international cooperation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The Union will cooperate in all endeavours aiming to reform the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism which can ensure the effective functioning of the WTO Appellate Body.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 February 2021 2021/C 49/06
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021049EN.01000601.xml










12.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 February 2021
(2021/C 49/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2147 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,12 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4380 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87755 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0868 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0802 




ISK


Iceland króna


155,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2595 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,772 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,18 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4975 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8745 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,5254 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5638 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5384 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4171 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6772 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6080 




KRW


South Korean won


1 339,97 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7533 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8448 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5688 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 963,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9104 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,343 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,3792 




THB


Thai baht


36,271 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4936 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2037 




INR


Indian rupee


88,4040 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-89/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: food contamination, food inspection, food safety, fresh meat, microorganism, poultrymeat








C_2021163EN.01001501.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba
(Case C-89/21)
(2021/C 163/20)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant:‘Romega’ UAB

Respondent: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (1) of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs and Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety be interpreted as conferring on the competent supervisory authorities of a Member State the discretion to determine that fresh poultry meat which meets the requirements set out in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 in the case where a food product coming under that food category is contaminated by Salmonella serotypes other than those referred to in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005, as has been established in the present case?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).
Case C-90/21 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2021 by Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2020 in Case T-247/19, Thunus and Others v EIB
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interest, pay, pay rise, principle of proportionality, servant (EU), wage determination








C_2021228EN.01001602.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/16






Appeal brought on 12 February 2021 by Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2020 in Case T-247/19, Thunus and Others v EIB
(Case C-90/21 P)
(2021/C 228/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 in Case T-247/19;










—


Consequently, uphold the appellants’ claims at first instance and, accordingly:






—


Annul the decision contained in the appellants’ payslips for the month of February 2018, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0,7 % for the year 2018, and, therefore, annul the similar decisions contained in the subsequent payslips;










—


Order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2018, that is, an increase of 1,4 % for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0,7 % for 2018 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2018; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;














—


Order the defendant to pay all of the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.


Infringement of the right of consultation of the College of staff representatives — Distortion of the file.










2.


Infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the file — Infringement by the court of its obligation to state reasons.










3.


Infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of proportionality.