do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-453/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 July 2021 — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC
Date: 2021-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: board of directors, conflict of interest, data protection, dismissal, employer, labour relations, personal data








C_2021490EN.01001601.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 July 2021 — X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG v FC
(Case C-453/21)
(2021/C 490/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant, appellant in first appeal and appellant on a point of law: X-FAB Dresden GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant, respondent in first appeal and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: FC

Questions referred







1.


Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as precluding a provision in national law, such as, in the present case, Paragraph 38(1) and (2) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on data protection; ‘the BDSG’), which makes dismissal of the data protection officer by the controller, who is his employer, subject to the conditions set out therein, irrespective of whether such dismissal relates to the performance of his tasks?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR also preclude such a provision in national law if the designation of the data protection officer is mandatory not in accordance with Article 37(1) of the GDPR, but only in accordance with the law of the Member State?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:










3.


Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) of the GDPR have sufficient legal basis, in particular in so far as it covers data protection officers that have an employment relationship with the controller?
If the first question is answered in the negative:










4.


Is there a conflict of interests within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 38(6) of the GDPR if the data protection officer also holds the office of chairman of the works council established at the controlling body? Must specific tasks have been assigned within the works council in order for such a conflict of interests to be assumed to exist?






(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 C-449/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 21 July 2021 — Towercast v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministère de l’Économie
Date: 2021-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, dominant position, economic concentration, merger control








C_2021452EN.01000901.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 21 July 2021 — Towercast v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministère de l’Économie
(Case C-449/21)
(2021/C 452/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Towercast

Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministère de l’Économie

Question referred

Is Article 21(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national competition authority from regarding a concentration which has no Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of that regulation, is below the thresholds for mandatory ex ante assessment laid down in national law, and has not been referred to the European Commission under Article 22 of Regulation No 139/2004, as constituting an abuse of a dominant position prohibited by Article 102 TFEU, in the light of the structure of competition on a market which is national in scope?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 July 2021 2021/C 291/04
Date: 2021-07-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021291EN.01000401.xml










21.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 July 2021
(2021/C 291/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1775 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4381 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86545 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2535 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0838 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6170 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,642 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5954 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9255 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0664 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6082 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5023 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1529 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7049 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6106 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,39 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1349 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6305 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5210 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 143,51 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9743 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,005 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,6775 




THB


Thai baht


38,634 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1633 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5990 




INR


Indian rupee


87,9210 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-452/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X
Date: 2021-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU environmental policy, airport, damages, economic value, environmental protection, limitation of legal proceedings, noise pollution, noise protection, protection of privacy, real property








C_2022024EN.01001102.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X
(Case C-452/21)
(2022/C 24/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: J.K., B.K.

Respondent: Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

Question referred

Must Article 191(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 7, 17 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Articles 2, 8 and 9 of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, (1) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of a provision of national law, namely Article 129(4) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 kwietnia 2001 r. — Prawo ochrony środowiska (Environmental Protection Law of 27 April 2001), which provides for a time limit of three years for bringing a claim related to a restriction on the manner of use of property, and which prevents the owners of property within a restricted use area associated with the operation of an airport from obtaining compensation for a reduction in the value of their property and reimbursement for the costs of soundproofing, as in the present case?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12.