do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-27/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes — France) — PF, QG v Caisse d’allocations familiales (CAF) d’Ille-et-Vilaine (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Ceilings related to resources — Account taken of the resources received in the penultimate year preceding the period of payment of allowances — Worker returning to his Member State of origin — Reduction in the entitlement to family allowances)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, income, residence, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation








C_2021278EN.01001601.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/16






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes — France) — PF, QG v Caisse d’allocations familiales (CAF) d’Ille-et-Vilaine
(Case C-27/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Ceilings related to resources - Account taken of the resources received in the penultimate year preceding the period of payment of allowances - Worker returning to his Member State of origin - Reduction in the entitlement to family allowances)
(2021/C 278/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PF, QG

Defendant: Caisse d’allocations familiales (CAF) d’Ille-et-Vilaine

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which uses, as the reference year for the calculation of family allowances to be allocated, the penultimate year preceding the payment period, so that, in the event of a substantial increase in the income received by a national official in the course of a secondment to an EU institution situated in another Member State, the amount of family allowances is, at the time of the return of that official to the Member State of origin, significantly reduced for two years.


(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Luxembourg and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery — Tax rulings — State resources — Advantage — Combined effect of two tax measures — Participation exemption regime — Taxation of profit distributions — Abuse of law — Selectivity — Reference framework — Finding of a derogation — Comparability of situations — Parent-subsidiary arrangement — Group of companies — Recovery — Indirect harmonisation — Procedural rights — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, direct tax, holding company, reimbursement of aid, tax harmonisation








C_2021263EN.01001601.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/16






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Luxembourg and Others v Commission
(Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax rulings - State resources - Advantage - Combined effect of two tax measures - Participation exemption regime - Taxation of profit distributions - Abuse of law - Selectivity - Reference framework - Finding of a derogation - Comparability of situations - Parent-subsidiary arrangement - Group of companies - Recovery - Indirect harmonisation - Procedural rights - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 263/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant in Case T-516/18: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: T. Uri, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Applicants in Case T-525/18: Engie Global LNG Holding Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Engie Invest International SA (Luxembourg), and Engie (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, M. Struys and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-516/18: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney, M. Browne and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Gallagher and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel, as well as B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/421 of 20 June 2018 on State aid SA.44888 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE (OJ 2019 L 78, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Joins Cases T-516/18 and T-525/18 for the purposes of the judgment;










2.


Dismisses the actions;










3.


Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-516/18;










4.


Orders Engie Global LNG Holding Sàrl, Engie Invest International SA and Engie to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-525/18;










5.


Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-709/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Damage consisting in purely financial loss)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, bank deposit, damages, investment company, investment protection, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, trade information








C_2021278EN.01000801.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc
(Case C-709/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Damage consisting in purely financial loss)
(2021/C 278/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vereniging van Effectenbezitters

Defendant: BP plc

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) 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 meaning that the direct occurrence in an investment account of purely financial loss resulting from investment decisions taken as a result of information which is easily accessible worldwide but inaccurate, incomplete or misleading from an international listed company does not allow the attribution of international jurisdiction, on the basis of the place of the occurrence of the damage, to a court of the Member State in which the bank or investment firm in which the account is held has its registered office, where that firm was not subject to statutory reporting obligations in that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Case T-387/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — DF and DG v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Remuneration — Decision refusing entitlement to an installation allowance upon return to headquarters — Liability)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, indemnification, interest, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021263EN.01001701.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/17






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — DF and DG v EIB
(Case T-387/19) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Remuneration - Decision refusing entitlement to an installation allowance upon return to headquarters - Liability)
(2021/C 263/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: DF and DG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: M. Loizou and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFUE and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the EIB’s decisions of 6 March 2018 and 28 February 2019 not to grant the applicants the benefit of an installation allowance, (ii) of the EIB’s decisions of 19 and 27 March 2019 confirming the decision not to grant the installation allowance, and rejecting their request to launch a conciliation procedure, (iii) of the EIB’s decisions of 14 June 2019 confirming the decision not to grant the installation allowance and, second, compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






(1)


Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 6 March 2018 and 19 March 2019 not to grant DF the payment of the installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Rules.










(2)


Annuls the decisions of the EIB of 28 February and 27 March 2019 not to grant DG the payment of the installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Rules.










(3)


Orders the EIB to pay to DF and DG, subject to the calculation of the amounts, the installation allowance provided for in Articles 5 and 17 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Rules, increased by late interest, from the date of delivery of this judgment, calculated at the level of the European Central Bank (ECB) rate plus two points, until the date of payment in full by the EIB.










(4)


Dismisses the action for the remainder.










(5)


Orders the EIB to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case C-305/21 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2021 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-723/18, Barata v Parliament
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, in-service training, principle of proportionality, promotion, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), use of languages








C_2022207EN.01000902.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/9






Appeal brought on 12 May 2021 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-723/18, Barata v Parliament
(Case C-305/21 P)
(2022/C 207/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, avocats, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal be dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr João Miguel Barata should bear his own costs.
Case T-260/21: Action brought on 12 May 2021 — E. Breuninger v Commission
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, single market








C_2021263EN.01002902.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/29






Action brought on 12 May 2021 — E. Breuninger v Commission
(Case T-260/21)
(2021/C 263/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: M. Vetter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 264(1) TFEU, the defendant’s decision of 20 November 2020 (State aid No SA.59289) as amended by the defendant’s decision of 12 February 2021 (State aid No SA.61744);










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


The German aid scheme ‘Bundesregelung Fixkostenhilfe 2020’ (Federal Scheme for Fixed Cost Aid 2020), approved by the defendant, is incompatible with the internal market because it distorts competition, without it being exceptionally justified in the present case. The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that an aid scheme requiring a company-wide decrease in turnover of at least 30 % is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. According to the applicant, the company-wide approach of the aid scheme excludes companies such as the applicant, with several different business areas affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, whose brick-and-mortar business saw a drop in turnover far exceeding 30 % due to closures, from being eligible to apply for that aid only because another business area does not suffer any turnover losses and, by calculating the arithmetical average of the turnover from different business areas, the 30 % threshold is not reached. Those companies would then — by contrast to companies with only one business area — receive no aid and would have to cross-subsidise the uncovered fixed costs of their closed business area from their other business areas. This leads to a distortion of competition, both in relation to competitors in business areas that were affected by Covid-19 and in relation to those in business areas that were not affected by Covid-19.










2.


The defendant infringed the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU by failing to provide it with an opportunity to raise concerns in respect of the compatibility of the aid scheme with the internal market during the preliminary investigation procedure.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 May 2021 2021/C 184/04
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021184EN.01000401.xml










12.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 May 2021
(2021/C 184/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2170 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,12 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86013 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1130 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0976 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0320 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,571 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,34 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5522 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9270 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0811 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5509 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4729 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4527 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6718 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6125 




KRW


South Korean won


1 361,23 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9847 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8177 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5387 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 254,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0122 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,230 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,9947 




THB


Thai baht


37,849 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3576 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,1364 




INR


Indian rupee


89,2890 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
List of customs offices empowered to handle formalities for the exportation of cultural goods, published in accordance with Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 (OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.) 2021/C 184/09
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, cultural object, customs, customs formalities, export (EU)








C_2021184EN.01001301.xml










12.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/13






List of customs offices empowered to handle formalities for the exportation of cultural goods, published in accordance with Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 (1)

(2021/C 184/09)







Member State


Name of customs


Region (if applicable)




BELGIUM


All customs offices


 




BULGARIA


All customs offices


 




CZECH REPUBLIC


All customs offices


 




DENMARK


All customs offices


 




GERMANY


All customs offices


 




ESTONIA


All customs offices


 




IRELAND


All customs offices


 




GREECE








1)


Customs office of Athens,




12th km of national road Athens-Lamia (A1)
144 10 Metamorphosi


 










2)


1st Customs Office of Thessaloniki,




Port of Thessaloniki
54110 Thessaloniki


 




SPAIN


All Customs offices


 




FRANCE


All customs offices


 




CROATIA


All customs offices


 




ITALY


All customs offices


 




CYPRUS


District Customs House of Nicosia


Nicosia




District Customs House of Larnaca


Larnaca




District Customs House of Limassol


Limassol




LATVIA


All customs offices


 




LITHUANIA


All customs offices


 




LUXEMBOURG


Luxembourg Aéroport
(LU715000)


 




Bettembourg
(LU701000)


 




HUNGARY


Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal megyei (fővárosi) adó-és vámigazgatóságai [all County Directorates and Budapest Capital Directorate of National Tax and Customs Authority]


 




Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatóság [Directorate of Priority Taxpayers of National Tax and Customs Authority]


 




Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Repülőtéri Igazgatóság [Budapest Airport Directorate of National Tax and Customs Authority]


 




MALTA


Export Supervision Unit
Lascaris Wharf, Valletta
VLT 1920


 




NETHERLANDS


All customs offices


 




AUSTRIA


All customs offices


 




POLAND


All customs offices


 




PORTUGAL


Alfândega Marítima de Lisboa


 




Alfândega do Aeroporto de Lisboa


 




Alfândega de Alverca


 




Alfândega de Leixões


 




Alfândega do Aeroporto de Sá Carneiro (Porto)


 




Alfândega do Funchal


 




Alfândega de Ponta Delgada


 




ROMANIA


All customs offices


 




SLOVENIA


All customs offices


 




SLOVAK REPUBLIC


All customs offices


 




FINLAND


All customs offices


 




SWEDEN


All customs offices


 






(1)  OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.
Case C-130/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — YJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4(1) — Discrimination on ground of sex — National legislation providing for a pension maternity supplement to be granted to women who have had a certain number of children — Exclusion from entitlement to that pension supplement of women who have requested early retirement — Scope of Directive 79/7EEC)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early retirement, equal treatment, gender equality, maternity benefit, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social security legislation








C_2021278EN.01002002.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/20






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — YJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
(Case C-130/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Discrimination on ground of sex - National legislation providing for a pension maternity supplement to be granted to women who have had a certain number of children - Exclusion from entitlement to that pension supplement of women who have requested early retirement - Scope of Directive 79/7EEC)
(2021/C 278/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: YJ

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security does not apply to national legislation which provides that women who have had at least two biological or adopted children are entitled to a pension maternity supplement in the event of retirement at the statutory age or early retirement on certain grounds laid down by law, but not if the person concerned voluntarily takes early retirement.


(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case C-11/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Article 108(2), second subparagraph, TFEU — Adverse weather conditions — Losses suffered by farmers — Compensation aid — Obligation of recovery — Duty to provide information — Non-implementation)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, bad weather, control of State aid, crop losses, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid








C_2021278EN.01001402.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/14






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-11/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Article 108(2), second subparagraph, TFEU - Adverse weather conditions - Losses suffered by farmers - Compensation aid - Obligation of recovery - Duty to provide information - Non-implementation)
(2021/C 278/19)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and T. Ramopoulos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009, and by failing to sufficiently inform the European Commission of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision and under the TFEU;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.