ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-809/21) (1)

(2022/C 368/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Portugal) — DS, CF, DT, CL v Orbest, SA

(Case C-704/21) (1)

(Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Collision of a catering vehicle with an aircraft parked at the airport)

(2022/C 318/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DS, CF, DT, CL

Defendant: Orbest, SA

Operative part of the order

Case C-704/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

(1) Date of filing: 23.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 2 de León — Spain) — ACNC v Unicaja Banco, SA

(Case C-652/21) (1)

(2023/C 15/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — Joëlle Mélin v European Parliament

(Case C-541/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 33(1) and (2) - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Plea of illegality - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Assessment of the evidence - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2022/C 368/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Joëlle Mélin (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

2. Ms Joëlle Mélin shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — NC v Compania Naţională de Transporturi Aeriene Tarom SA

(Case C-229/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c)(iii) - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation of a flight - Right to compensation in the case of an offer of re-routing - Conditions - Divergence between different language versions of a provision of EU law - Re-routing allowing passengers to depart no more than one hour before their scheduled time of departure)

(2023/C 35/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NC

Defendant: Compania Naţională de Transporturi Aeriene Tarom SA

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation, unless they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure, if that air carrier offers them re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

(1) Date of filing: 29.3.2022.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș — Romania) — proceedings brought by Delgaz Grid SA

(Case C-95/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Article 82 TFEU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right of a person to be informed of the charges brought against him or her - Directive 2012/13/EU - Article 6(1) - Scope - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Challenge to the excessive length of criminal proceedings - National legislation allowing such a challenge to be made only by persons with the status of suspect or accused person - Article 267 TFEU - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 424/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș

Criminal proceedings against

Delgaz Grid SA

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș (Court of First Instance, Târgu-Mureș, Romania), by decision of 28 January 2022.

(1) Date lodged: 11.2.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/15

Request for an opinion submitted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

(Opinion 1/09)

2009/C 220/24

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-C. Piris, F. Florindo Gijón and G. Kimberley, acting as Agents)

Questions submitted to the Court

Is the proposed agreement creating a unified patent litigation system (currently called the ‘European and Community Patents Court’) (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

(1) Council Working Document on a revised Presidency text of the Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court and Draft Statute (document 7928/09 of 23 March 2009).
Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion C-1/20)

(2021/C 53/18)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux, M. Van Regemorter, S. Baeyens, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Is the draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty compatible with the Treaties, and in particular Article 19 TEU and Article 344 TFEU:

— so far as concerns Article 26 of that agreement, if that article may be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism?
Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — European Parliament

(Opinion 1/19) (1)

(Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) - Signature by the European Union - Draft conclusion by the European Union - Concept of an ‘agreement envisaged’, within the meaning of Article 218(11) TFEU - External competences of the European Union - Substantive legal basis - Article 78(2) TFEU - Article 82(2) TFEU - Article 83(1) TFEU - Article 84 TFEU - Article 336 TFEU - Articles 1 to 4a of Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice - Partial participation of Ireland in the conclusion of the Istanbul Convention by the European Union - Possibility of splitting the act concluding an international agreement into two separate decisions according to the applicable legal bases - Practice of ‘common accord’ - Compatibility with the TEU and the TFEU)

(2021/C 481/02)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

European Parliament (represented by: by D. Warin, A. Neergaard and O. Hrstková Šolcová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the Opinion

1. Subject to full compliance, at all times, with the requirements laid down in Article 218(2), (6) and (8) TFEU, the Treaties do not prohibit the Council of the European Union, acting in conformity with its Rules of Procedure, from waiting, before adopting the decision concluding the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) on behalf of the European Union, for the ‘common accord’ of the Member States to be bound by that convention in the fields falling within their competences. However, the Treaties do prohibit the Council from adding a further step to the conclusion procedure laid down in that article by making the adoption of the decision concluding that convention contingent on the prior establishment of such a ‘common accord’;

2. The appropriate substantive legal basis for the adoption of the Council act concluding, on behalf of the European Union, the part of the Istanbul Convention covered by the envisaged agreement, within the meaning of Article 218(11) TFEU, is made up of Article 78(2), Article 82(2) and Articles 84 and 336 TFEU;

3. Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the TEU and the TFEU justify the division of the Council act concluding, on behalf of the European Union, the part of the Istanbul Convention covered by the envisaged agreement into two separate decisions only in so far as that division is intended to take account of the circumstance that Ireland or the Kingdom of Denmark is not participating in the measures adopted in respect of the conclusion of that agreement which fall within the scope of those protocols, considered in their entirety.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Recovery of undue payment - Conditions - No due reason for payment - Recipient aware of that fact - Criteria

( Staff Regulations, Art . 85 )

Summary

An official is aware, within the meaning of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, that there was no due reason for payments made by the administration under Article 67(1 ) if, in view in particular of the senior position he occupies in the Community administration, he could not have failed to know that the Community education allowance and dependent child allowance which he received could not, under Article 67(2 ), be combined with an educational grant received by his child under a law on study grants of his Member State of origin, the object of which is similar to that of the Community allowances and is clearly apparent from the title and substance of the law .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Staff Regulations - Application - Joint decision taken by the Heads of Administration - Not binding on the appointing authority

( Staff Regulations, Art . 110, third paragraph )

2 . Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Travel expenses from place of employment to place of origin - Reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of persons treated as dependent children - Condition - Residence at the official' s place of employment

( Staff Regulations, Art . 71; Annex VII, Art . 8(1 ) )

3 . Officials - Equal treatment - Concept - Flat-rate reimbursement of travel expenses - Conditions of granting - Different conditions for dependent children and persons treated as such - Permissibility

( Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art . 8(1 ) )

Operative part

hereby :

( 1 ) Dismisses the application;

( 2 ) Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Remuneration - Five-yearly adjustment - Arrears of salary - Entitlement to default interest - None, in the absence of a definite or quantifiable sum

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 65)

2. Officials - Remuneration - Weightings - Belated five-yearly adjustment - Fault on the part of the administration - Damage resulting from currency depreciation - General link - Right to compensatory interest

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 65(2))

Summary

1. An obligation to pay default interest can arise only where the amount of the principal sum is certain or can at least be ascertained on the basis of established objective factors. Since the powers conferred on the Council by Article 65 of the Staff Regulations for adjusting the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants and for fixing the weightings applicable thereto involve the exercise of a discretion, no certainty exists as to the amount of those adjustments and the fixing of the weightings until the Council has exercised its powers and adopted the regulation on the matter, so that, if that condition is not satisfied, the arrears of salary do not have to bear default interest if they are paid without undue delay after the adoption of the said regulation.

2. It follows from Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations that decisions adjusting the weightings applicable to remuneration must be taken without unjustifiable delay. Accordingly, any inexcusable delay in enacting the regulations in that area must be regarded as constituting a fault. In considering the question whether a delay is unjustified, account must be taken of the fact that the institutions must have a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances of the particular case and the complexity of the matter, in which to finalize their proposals or decisions.

When a regulation concerning the adjustment of weightings is adopted upon the termination of an exceedingly long and unjustified preparatory procedure, its retroactive application cannot make good the damage resulting, for those concerned, from the loss of purchasing power of the arrears of remuneration paid with several years' delay. Such damage, occasioned by the wrongful delay on the part of the administration, gives rise to a right to the payment of compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition - Cartels - Concerted practice - Proof of the infringement - Burden of proof

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1) )

2. Competition - Cartels - Agreements between undertakings and concerted practices - Concept - Common purpose as to the conduct to be adopted on the market

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1) )

3. Acts of the institutions - Stating of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decision to apply the competition rules

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

1. When the Commission has gathered sufficiently detailed and concordant evidence to substantiate the view that the conduct of a number of undertakings can only be explained by the existence of an agreement or a concerted practice, it is for the undertakings concerned to prove that a satisfactory explanation may be given for their conduct which does not involve such an infringement of the obligations imposed on them by Article 85(1) of the Treaty.

2. Periodic meetings of producers during which emerge common purposes concerning price initiatives, measures designed to facilitate the implementation of price initiatives and sales volume targets constitute an agreement and a concerted practice prohibited by Article 85(1) of the Treaty.

3. Although under Article 190 of the EEC Treaty the Commission is obliged to state the reasons on which its decisions are based, mentioning the factual and legal elements which provide the legal basis for the measure and the considerations which have led it to adopt its decision, it is not required, in the case of a decision applying the competition rules, to discuss all the issues of fact and of law raised by every party during the administrative proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Interest in bringing an action - Action for annulment of the appointment of another official - Applicant not able to be appointed - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts. 90 and 91)

Summary

In order for an official to bring proceedings pursuant to Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations against a decision appointing another official, he must have a personal interest in its annulment.

That is not the case where an official cannot lay claim to the vacant post to which that appointment has been made because she has not submitted an application and does not satisfy the requirements stipulated in the Notice of Vacancy.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure - Application originating the proceedings - Formal requirements - Brief statement of a plea in law - Development in the reply - Defendant' s arguments submitted, for the first time, in the rejoinder - Observance of the principle of audi alteram partem

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, first paragraph of Art. 19; Rules of Procedure, Art. 38(1)(c) )

2. Officials - Pensions - Old-age pension - Calculation - Official in receipt of a termination of service allowance - Acquisition of further rights to pension - Concept

(Staff Regulations, Art. 77; Council Regulation No 3518/85, Art. 4(7) )

Summary

1. A plea for annulment may be developed only in the reply if it has been set out in summary form in the application originating the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, which require that the Court of Justice should be able to review the legality of the measure under challenge and that the defendant should not be deprived of the opportunity to defend its interests effectively.

The fact that the defendant submits, for the first time, in the rejoinder its arguments concerning the above plea is not in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem.

2. Article 4(7) of Regulation No 3518/85 introducing on a temporary basis special measures to terminate the service of officials of the European Communities as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal, which enables an official affected by a measure to terminate his service to acquire "further years of pensionable service", does not distinguish between the two main factors which, according to Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, determine the calculation of the retirement pension, namely the number of years of pensionable service acquired by the official and the basic salary attaching to his last grade and step.

It follows that the period during which an official affected by a measure of termination of service receives the allowance provided for in the above regulation and continues to contribute to the Community pension scheme may be taken into consideration both for the purpose of increasing the number of years of pensionable service which he has acquired and for the purpose of completing the year during which he must, in accordance with Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, have been classified in his last grade and step for his old-age pension to be calculated on the basis of the salary attaching to them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Time-limits ° Matter of public policy

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged within the time-limit ° Subsequent express decision ° Confirmatory measure ° Time- barred

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(1) and 91)

Summary

1. The time-limits under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for bringing complaints and appeals, laid down with a view to ensuring clarity and legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are not a plea to be raised at the discretion of the parties or the Court.

The fact that an institution has not pleaded that a complaint is out of time cannot relieve the Court of its obligation to check whether the time-limits laid down in the Staff Regulations have been complied with.

2. Since the express rejection of a request after an implied decision rejecting that request is merely a confirmatory measure, it cannot, in the absence of any provision in the Staff Regulations to that effect, enable an official who has not challenged the implied decision rejecting his request within the time-limits to pursue the pre-litigation procedure by giving him a fresh period for lodging a complaint, without endangering legal certainty, which requires that the means of redress of officials and other servants should be governed by precise rules strictly interpreted.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Leave ° Annual leave ° Retirement ° Financial compensation for unused leave ° Condition for grant ° Proof of the existence of reasons attributable to the requirements of the service

(Staff Regulations, Art. 57; Annex V, Art. 4, first and second paras)

Summary

It is clear from the first two paragraphs of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations that an official who has not used up all his annual leave when he retires is entitled, without limitation, to compensation for all annual leave which he has been unable to take because of requirements of the service. The justification for the accumulation of annual leave not taken because of requirements of the service is the only condition to which the abovementioned provisions, combined with Article 57 of the Staff Regulations determining the length of the annual leave to which an official is entitled, make entitlement to financial compensation subject, beyond the limit of 12 days unused leave, when the official retires.

Accordingly, the administration is not entitled to limit the number of days for which compensation is payable. Nor may it impose additional conditions, of a procedural nature or otherwise, which are liable to undermine the right provided by the Staff Regulations to compensation for annual leave which an official has been unable to take owing to requirements of service, upon retirement. In particular, the binding requirement of a written statement from the official' s superior specifying the requirements of the service which justified the refusal to grant an application for leave submitted by the official in question is unacceptable, since it deprives him of the right to prove, by any means, that his leave was accumulated for reasons relating to the requirements of the service.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Recruitment ° Appointment in grade ° Appointment to the higher grade in the career bracket ° Permissibility ° Condition ° Special needs of the service to which the official is assigned

(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2))

Summary

It is not permissible to recruit an official in the higher grade of a career bracket under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations save in exceptional cases where this is justified by the specific needs of the service, which call for the recruitment of a specially qualified official.

Unlike the second paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, which allows the appointing authority to grant a successful candidate in a competition additional seniority in step to take account of his training and specific experience, the purpose of Article 31(2) is to enable the appointing authority to have regard to the specific needs of a particular service by offering attractive conditions in order to attract specially qualified candidates.