do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-132/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 March 2021 — BE v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, personal data, protection of privacy, right of action, right to justice








C_2021206EN.01001302.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 March 2021 — BE v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság
(Case C-132/21)
(2021/C 206/17)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BE

Defendant: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

Intervener: Budapesti Elektromos Művek Zrt.

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 77(1) and 79(1) of [Regulation 2016/679] (1) be interpreted as meaning that the administrative appeal provided for in Article 77 constitutes an instrument for the exercise of public rights, whereas the legal action provided for in Article 79 constitutes an instrument for the exercise of private rights? If so, does this support the inference that the supervisory authority, which is responsible for hearing and determining administrative appeals, has priority competence to determine the existence of an infringement?










2.


In the event that the data subject — in whose opinion the processing of personal data relating to him has infringed Regulation 2016/679 — simultaneously exercises his right to lodge a complaint under Article 77(1) of that regulation and his right to bring a legal action under Article 79(1) of the same regulation, may an interpretation in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be regarded as meaning:






(a)


that the supervisory authority and the court have an obligation to examine the existence of an infringement independently and may therefore even arrive at different outcomes; or










(b)


that the supervisory authority’s decision takes priority when it comes to the assessment as to whether an infringement has been committed, regard being had to the powers provided for in Article 51(1) of Regulation 2016/679 and those conferred by Article 58(2)(b) and (d) of that regulation?














3.


Must the independence of the supervisory authority, ensured by Articles 51(1) and 52(1) of Regulation 2016/679, be interpreted as meaning that that authority, when conducting and adjudicating upon complaint proceedings under Article 77, is independent of whatever ruling may be given by final judgment by the court having jurisdiction under Article 79, with the result that it may even adopt a different decision in respect of the same alleged infringement?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1)
Case T-145/21: Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Fursin and Others v ECB
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, banking supervision, corruption, damages, interest, liquidation, money laundering, trade licence








C_2021206EN.01002901.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/29






Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Fursin and Others v ECB
(Case T-145/21)
(2021/C 206/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ivan Fursin (Kiev, Ukraine) and 5 other applicants (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay financial compensation in respect of the harm which the applicants have suffered as a result of the defendant’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005, of 3 March 2016, to revoke Trasta Komercbanka AS’ licence;










—


determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 25 million (1) together with the compensatory interest starting at 3 March 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not deal appropriately with procedural irregularities. These include the fact that the Latvian FCMC (2) had concluded, immediately prior to the initiation of the licence withdrawal procedure, that a licence withdrawal was not warranted and that this fact was subsequently omitted from the request by the FCMC to revoke the licence. The applicants further complain that the English language version of the FCMC’s most recent decision was manipulated. Further alleged procedural irregularities concern a failure to deal effectively with potentially corrupt conduct by Latvian and European officials with respect to the present matter.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated substantive provisions by acting outside its area of competence when issuing the contested decision, in particular with regard to money laundering matters and that the defendant erroneously assumed grounds for a licence withdrawal.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the applicants suffered significant financial harm, especially because of Trasta Komercbanka AS’ liquidation as a result of the wrongful licence withdrawal.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a causal link between the licence withdrawal and the damage suffered by the applicants.






(1)  The amounts are attributable to each of the applicants in the amounts of their shareholding of Trasta Komercbanka AS.

(2)  Financial Capital Markets Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10179 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft/KiK Textilien und Non-Food) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 74/05
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, food production, merger control, real estate business, retail trade, textile industry








C_2021074EN.01000601.xml










3.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10179 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft/KiK Textilien und Non-Food)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 74/05)

1.   
On 23 February 2021, 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:






—


Tengelmann International GmbH (‘Tengelmann International’, Germany), controlled by Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (‘Tengelmann’, Germany),










—


KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Germany, ‘KiK’ or the ‘Target’), currently jointly controlled by Tengelmann and H.H. Holding, the latter ultimately controlled by Jost-Stefan Heinig.




Tengelmann acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of KiK.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Tengelmann is active worldwide as a retailer, supplying textiles, food products, real estate and e-commerce services, among others,










—


KiK is active in retail, supplying textiles in particular, at over 3400 outlets in Germany, Croatia, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slowakia, Slovenia, Czechia, and Hungary.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10179 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft/KiK Textilien und Non-Food
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 90/2021 of 3 March 2021 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2024/112]
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, air traffic, airport, carrier, common transport policy, coronavirus disease, epidemic, revision of an agreement, transport capacity, transport planning




L_202400112EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2024/112


18.1.2024







            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 90/2021
of 3 March 2021
         
amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2024/112]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) 2021/250 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 as regards temporary relief from the slot utilisation rules at Union airports due to the COVID-19 crisis (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following indent is added in point 64b (Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:






‘-



32021 R 0250: Regulation (EU) 2021/250 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 (OJ L 58, 19.2.2021, p. 1).’






Article 2
The text of Regulation (EU) 2021/250 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 3 March 2021, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 3 March 2021.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Clara GANSLANDT
            





(1)  
            OJ L 58, 19.2.2021, p. 1.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/112/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case T-132/21: Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP)
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, electronic device, information technology industry, medical device, registered trade mark, telecommunications, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021148EN.01002601.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/26






Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP)
(Case T-132/21)
(2021/C 148/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LOOP — Application for registration No 18 008 477

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2020 in Case R 644/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected the EU trade mark registration application No 18008477;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the costs incurred during the appeal and examination procedures before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in conjunction with Article 20 and Article 21(1) thereof.
Case C-523/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék — Hungary) — Koppány 2007 Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social security — Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 — Applicable legislation — A1 certificate — Article 1 — Extension of A1 certificate to nationals of third countries residing legally in the territory of a Member State — Legal residence — Concept)
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, establishment, foreign national, migrant worker, residence, residence permit, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation








C_2021228EN.01001102.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/11






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék — Hungary) — Koppány 2007 Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
(Case C-523/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social security - Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 - Applicable legislation - A1 certificate - Article 1 - Extension of A1 certificate to nationals of third countries residing legally in the territory of a Member State - Legal residence - Concept)
(2021/C 228/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Koppány 2007 Kft.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Operative part of the order

Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality, must be interpreted as meaning that nationals of third countries who reside temporarily and have a residence permit in a Member State, and who have a document stating their place of accommodation issued by the immigration authority and work in different Member States for an employer established in that Member State, may rely on the coordination rules laid down by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, in order to determine the social security legislation to which they are subject, provided that they are legally residing and working in the territory of the Member States.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 10061 — Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company/Heineken/Stockday) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 74/06
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage, wholesale trade








C_2021074EN.01000801.xml










3.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M. 10061 — Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company/Heineken/Stockday)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 74/06)

1.   
On 24 February 2021, 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:






—


Coca-Cola HBC Romania (‘CCH Romania’, Romania), controlled by Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company AG (Switzerland),










—


Heineken Romania S.A. (‘Heineken Romania’, Romania), controlled by Heineken N.V. (Netherlands),










—


Stockday S.R.L. (‘Stockday’, Romania), controlled by Heineken Romania.




CCH Romania and Heineken Romania acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Stockday. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CCH Romania: authorized bottler of The Coca-Cola Company, active in the bottling and distribution of a wide variety of non-alcoholic drinks and spirits in Romania;










—


Heineken Romania: active in the supply of a range of the Heineken group’s local and international brands of beer and cider in Romania;










—


Stockday: online business-to-business platform which currently distributes Heineken Romania beer and cider products to the fragmented retail and Horeca channel in Romania and CCH Romania products on a pilot basis in three Romanian counties.






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.10061 — Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company/Heineken/Stockday
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, 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’).
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2021/C 74 I/01
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Barents Sea, EU Member State, EU waters, Norwegian Sea, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








CI2021074EN.01000101.xml










3.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 74/1






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2021/C 74 I/01)
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


21.1.2021 at 00.00 UTC




Duration


21.1.2021 - 31.12.2021




Member State


Member States fishing under ‘Other Member States’ quota




Stock or Group of stocks


COD/1/2B_AMS




Species


Cod (Gadus Morhua)




Zone


1 and 2b




Type(s) of fishing vessels


---




Reference number


01/TQ/92






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-133/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Εfeteio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 3 March 2021 — VP, CX, RG, TR and Others v Elliniko Dimosio
Date: 2021-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, full-time employment, temporary employment, work contract








C_2021206EN.01001401.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Εfeteio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 3 March 2021 — VP, CX, RG, TR and Others v Elliniko Dimosio
(Case C-133/21)
(2021/C 206/18)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Εfeteio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: VP, CX, RG, TR and Others

Respondent: Elliniko Dimosio

Questions referred

Is national legislation, such as that at issue, which imposes different treatment for wage purposes on workers with fixed-term contracts within the meaning of clause 1 of Directive 1999/70/EC
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. (1) In particular, is national legislation under which different treatment of workers for wage purposes is justified on the ground that they provided their work under fixed-term contracts in the knowledge that they were covering fixed and permanent needs of the employer compatible with clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC?


(1)  as compared to the comparable permanent worker, on the basis of the sole criterion of differentiation that their contracts are classified by their employer or by law as fixed-term contracts for work, compatible with clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC?