ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd, London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 June 2022 in Joined Cases T-363/19 and T-456/19, United Kingdom and ITV v Commission

(Case C-564/22 P)

(2022/C 441/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd, London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, O.W. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ITV plc

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— render final judgment and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 of the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning Controlled Foreign Company Group Financing Exemption (1) (the ‘contested decision’);

— or in the alternative, refer the case back to the General court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on five pleas in law:

First, the General Court erred in law by distorting national law and overlooking evidence in identifying the reference system as the United Kingdom CFC (controlled foreign companies) rules in Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (the ‘TIOPA’), rather than the United Kingdom corporate taxation system of which they form an inseparable part.

Second, even if the reference system would be the United Kingdom CFC rules, the General Court erred in law in identifying the objective of the reference system, and consequently erred in identifying the provisions in Chapter 5 of the United Kingdom CFC rules as determining the ‘normal’ taxation of non-trading finance profits such that the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA would confer an ‘advantage’.

Third, the General Court erred in law in relation to the finding of a selective advantage. In particular, the General Court erred in law by incorrectly concluding that economic operators, which were able to benefit from the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA, were in a comparable legal and factual situation with companies, which were not.

Fourth, the General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU and Article 296 TFEU because it failed to address pleas in law and breached its duty to state reasons, because the General Court substituted its own reasoning for the reasoning of the Commission in the contested decision.

Fifth, the General Court erred in law in concluding that the ‘group financing exemption’ in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the TIOPA is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.

(1) OJ 2019 L 216, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Sofatutor GmbH

(Case C-565/22)

(2022/C 441/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Sofatutor GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights be interpreted as meaning that the consumer has a new right of withdrawal where a distance contract is ‘extended automatically’ (Article 6(1)(o) of that directive)?

(1) Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 8 February 2022 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2021 in Case T-719/21, Correia de Matos v Commission

(Case C-79/22 P)

(2022/C 463/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos (represented by: C. Correia de Matos, advogado)

Other party: European Commission

By order of 20 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Mr Carlos Correia de Matos to bear his own costs.
Appeal brought on 30 September 2022 by Grail LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-227/21, Illumina v Commission

(Case C-625/22 P)

(2022/C 451/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Grail LLC (represented by: D. Little, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. M. Jiménez Laiglesia, abogados, A. Giraud, avocat, S. Troch, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Illumina, Inc., European Commission, Hellenic Republic, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands, EFTA Surveillance Authority

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside and annul the judgment under appeal;

— annul Commission Decision C(2021) 2847 of 19 April 2021 in Case COMP/M.10188 — Illumina/Grail; related Commission Decisions C(2021) 2848 final, C(2021) 2849 final, C(2021) 2851 final, C(2021) 2854 final and C(2021) 2855 final of 19 April 2021; and the related Commission Decision of 11 March 2021 which informed Illumina and GRAIL that the Commission had received a request for referral and had the legal consequence, pursuant to Article 22(4)§ 2 that Illumina and GRAIL were prohibited from implementing the concentration pursuant to Article 7 EUMR (1);

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; and

— take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, GRAIL relies on three pleas. The first plea focuses on the legal errors included in the contested judgment’s historical, contextual and teleological interpretation of Article 22 EUMR concluding that Member States may make a referral request under that provision irrespective of the scope of their national merger control laws. The second plea focuses on the legal errors made by the General Court in its judgment by (i) not deriving any legal consequence from the correct finding that the Commission took an ‘unreasonable period of time’ to send the invitation letter to all Member States concerning the concentration relating to the acquisition by Illumina of sole control over GRAIL, and (ii) in the assessment leading to the conclusion that the Commission did not violate the Parties’ right of defence during the procedure leading to the adoption of the invitation letter and eventually to the Commission Decision C(2021) 2847. Finally, the third plea focuses on the legal errors in the contested judgment’s assessment of the legitimate expectations and legal certainty arising from the unconditional and precise assurances made by the Commissioner for Competition / Executive Vice President of the Commission regarding when and how the Commission’s reappraisal of the application of Article 22 EUMR would be implemented.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 October 2022 — Rzecznik Praw Dziecka and Others

(Case C-638/22)

(2022/C 482/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T. C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny

Other parties to the proceedings: M.C., Prokurator Prokuratura Okręgowa we Wrocławiu

Question referred

Does Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) and Article 22, Article 24, Article 27(6) and Article 28(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), (2) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the application of a provision of national law under which, in cases involving the removal of a person subject to parental responsibility or custody conducted under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction adopted in The Hague on 25 October 1980, the enforcement of an order for the removal of a person subject to parental responsibility or custody is suspended by operation of law where the Prokurator Generalny (Public Prosecutor General), Rzecznik Praw Dziecka (Commissioner for Children’s Rights) or Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Ombudsman) submits a request to that effect to the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Court of Appeal, Warsaw) within a period not exceeding two weeks from the day on which the order becomes final?

(1) OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2019 L 178, p. 1.
1.

Can Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, (1) which has not been transposed into Belgian law to provide for the granting of a residence permit or international protection to the mother of a child who was recognised as a refugee in Belgium and who arrived there accompanied by her mother, have direct effect? If so, does Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU confer, in the absence of transposition, on the mother of a child who was recognised as a refugee in Belgium and who arrived there accompanied by her mother the right to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, including a residence permit allowing her to reside legally in Belgium with her family, or the right to obtain international protection even if the mother does not individually qualify for such protection?
—

grant the form of order sought by JCDecaux at first instance and annul Article 1 of Decision C(2019) 4466 of the European Commission of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité, in so far as it found that there was incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 to 4, in so far as they order the Belgian State to recover the aid from JCDecaux;
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 14 September 2022 by Gugler France against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-147/21, Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case C-594/22 P)

(2023/C 35/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gugler France (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Alexander Gugler

By order of 5 December 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Gugler France should bear its own costs.
1.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has been abolished by the adopted amendment to the Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the judiciary) (DV No 32/26 April 2022, with effect from 27 July 2022), but the judges are to continue up to and after that date to deal with those cases before that court in which preliminary hearings have been held, the independence of that court is impaired, given that the abolition of the court is justified on the ground that the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens are thereby safeguarded, and the facts leading to the conclusion that those principles have been infringed are not duly set out[?]
Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20, PB v Commission

(Case C-721/22 P)

(2023/C 35/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: PB, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— set aside the first and third paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20;

— refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits in relation to the action for annulment; and

— order PB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a ground of annulment alleging an error of law.

The Commission disputes the finding of the General Court which considers, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that, on the basis of the reasoning in paragraphs 51 to 64 of that judgment, the PFI Regulation (1)‘cannot therefore constitute on its own the relevant legal basis for the purposes of adopting administrative measures seeking the recovery of amounts unduly paid. …’

The General Court errs in law because Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation constitute an autonomous and sufficiently precise basis to adopt administrative measures of recovery, which are not a penalty.

In paragraph 69 of its judgment, the General Court, lastly, concluded that the joint application of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002 and Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation did not permit the adoption of a measure vis-à-vis the applicant at first instance, in so far as he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments.

According to the Commission, the General Court errs in law because Article 7 of the PFI Regulation, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation and Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002, constitutes a sufficiently clear and precise provision to allow recovery from the applicant at first instance, even though he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
(1)

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3), and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), be interpreted as meaning that a court of last instance of a Member State (Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland)) whose composition includes persons appointed to the post of judge in breach of the fundamental rules of law of the Member State applicable to judicial appointments to the Supreme Court is not an independent, impartial tribunal previously established by law and providing effective legal protection to individuals in areas covered by EU law, where the aforementioned breach consists in: (a) the Prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (President of the Republic of Poland) announcing judicial vacancies in the Supreme Court without the prior countersignature of the Prezes Rady Ministrów (Prime Minister); (b) pre-appointment proceedings being conducted without regard to the principles of transparency and fairness by a national body (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa — the National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) which, given the circumstances surrounding its establishment (the selection of judges), and the manner in which it operates, does not meet the requirements of a constitutional body upholding the independence of the courts and of judges; (c) the President of the Republic of Poland handing out letters of appointment to the post of judge of the Supreme Court despite the fact that the resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary, which includes the motion for appointment to the post of judge, was previously challenged before the competent national court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland)), that the Supreme Administrative Court suspended the implementation of that resolution in accordance with national law, and that the appeal proceedings were not concluded, after which proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court validly set aside the challenged resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary due to its unlawfulness, permanently removing it from the legal order, thereby depriving the appointment to the post of judge of the Supreme Court of the basis required by Article 179 of the Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Constitution of the Republic of Poland), which basis consists of a motion by the National Council of the Judiciary for appointment to the post of judge?
4.

Does EU law, in particular Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation or case-law under which a policyholder — who has legitimately exercised his or her right of cancellation — is required to bear the burden of demonstration and proof for the purpose of quantifying the benefits of use derived by the insurer itself? Where such an imposition of the burden of demonstration and proof is permissible, does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, require that the policyholder has in return rights to information or some other assistance from the insurer that will enable him or her to enforce those rights?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 June 2022 by Group Nivelles against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-327/20, Group Nivelles v EUIPO

(Case C-419/22 P)

(2023/C 45/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Group Nivelles NV (represented by: J.A.M. Jonkhout, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Easy Sanitary Solutions BV

By order of 16 December 2022, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Group Nivelles NV to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Salzgitter AG, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-408/04 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Approval by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty - Steel undertaking - Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS - ECSC Treaty - EC Treaty - Steel Aid Codes - Concomitant application - Incompatibility of the aid - Compulsory notification of aid granted - Failure to notify the Commission - Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission - Recovery decision - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

(2008/C 142/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Salzgitter AG (represented by: J. Sedemund and T Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, W.-D. Plessing, C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter AG v Commission, annulling Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG — Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p. 5), concerning the obligation for Germany to recover the aid in question from the applicant — Breach of Article 4(c) CS and of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Steel Aid Codes — Breach of the rights of the defence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

2. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter v Commission to the extent it annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG — Stahl und Technologie (SAG) and makes an order on costs;

3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

4. Reserves costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-456/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Psychotherapists admitted to practise - System of quotas - Derogating transitional rules - Proportionality - Admissibility)

(2008/C 22/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and S. Grünheid, Agents

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Transitional rules concerning the authorisation of psychotherapists which require previous activities carried out under the national sickness insurance scheme in order for authorisation to be obtained

Operative part of the judgment

The Court

1. Declares that, by applying the transitional provisions or ‘established rights’, which permit psychotherapists to obtain authorisation or admission to practise independently of the applicable rules of the statutory sickness insurance scheme, solely to psychotherapists who have practised in a region of Germany under the German statutory sickness insurance schemes and by failing to take account of comparable or similar professional activity performed by psychotherapists in other Member States, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
1)

The terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and the term party ‘affected’ within the meaning of Article 16(3) of that directive must be interpreted as being applicable not only to an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market which is subject to a decision of a national regulatory authority taken in the context of a market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of that directive and which is the addressee of that decision, but also to users and undertakings in competition with such an undertaking which are not themselves addressees of that decision but the rights of which are adversely affected by it;