ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Société Air France SA v AQ and Others

(Case C-623/21) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Distinction between denied boarding, cancellation and long delay where there is a re-routing flight resulting in a delay shorter than the delay caused by taking the flight originally booked)

(2022/C 109/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Air France SA

Respondents: AQ, TP, IO, ON and XZ

Operative part of the order

Case C-623/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

(1) Date of filing: 8/10/2021.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Petróleos de Portugal — Petrogal, SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

(Case C-706/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to set out the legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 276/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Petróleos de Portugal — Petrogal, SA

Defendant: Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 27 October 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) Date lodged: 24.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 4 February 2022 — Czech Republic v Republic of Poland, intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission

(Case C-121/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/37)

Language of the case: Polish

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

(1) OJ C 138, 14.4.2021.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vercelli — Italy) — UC v Ministero dell’Istruzione

(Case C-450/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Allowance to support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills)

(2022/C 368/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Vercelli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UC

Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which gives only permanent teaching staff of the Ministry of Education, and not fixed-term teaching staff of that ministry, the right to benefit from additional remuneration in the amount of EUR 500 per year, granted in order to support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills, by means of an electronic card which can be used to purchase books and texts (including in digital format), publications, journals relevant in any way for professional development, to purchase hardware and software, to enrol in professional development and certification courses for professional skills, in undergraduate or masters courses related to the job profile, or in postgraduate courses or specialising masters courses related to the job profile, to attend theatrical performances and film screenings, to access museums, exhibitions, cultural events, live performances and other training activities, as well as to purchase connectivity services in order to fulfil the obligation to carry out professional activities remotely.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 15 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — G v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-614/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/68)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kleve — Germany) — AB and Others v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-307/21) (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 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(1)(c) - Right to compensation if flight is cancelled - Contract for carriage concluded through an online travel agent - Information on the cancellation of the flight communicated by means of an email address automatically generated by the travel agent - Failure to ensure that the passenger was properly informed)

(2023/C 24/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Kleve

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AB and Others

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and 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 the operating air carrier must pay the compensation provided for by those provisions in the event of a flight cancellation of which the passenger was not informed at least two weeks prior to the scheduled time of departure where that carrier sent the information in good time to the only email address communicated to it in the course of the booking, without, however, being aware that that address could be used only to contact the travel agent, through which the reservation had been made, and not the passenger directly and that that travel agent did not send the information to the passenger in good time.

(1) OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2022 — Maen Haikal v Council of the European Union

(Case C-113/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria - Lists of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Proof that the inclusion of the appellant’s name on those lists is well founded - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

(2023/C 15/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Maen Haikal (represented by: S. Koev, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Karaleev and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

2. Mr Maen Haikal shall pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — IA v DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-62/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/38)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — ME v État belge

(Case C-191/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/41)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 213, 30.5.2022.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Pharol, SGPS, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-67/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Tax on the income of legal persons - Dividends received from a company established in the Member State of the beneficiary company - Dividends received from a company established in a third country - National legislation for the elimination of double taxation - Difference in treatment - Restriction - Justification - Efficiency of fiscal verification - Absence of a convention obligation on communicating tax information)

(2022/C 398/11)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pharol, SGPS, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation aimed at the elimination of the economic double taxation of dividends under which a resident company of the Member State concerned can deduct from its taxable profit dividends which had been distributed to it by another resident company, but cannot deduct dividends distributed by a company established in a third country, on the grounds that the latter is not linked to the Member State of taxation by any convention obligation on communicating tax information, where that deduction is subject to a condition relating to the tax liability of the distributing company in the third country and, due to the absence of a convention obligation of that third country on providing information, it is impossible to obtain that information from the third country. A Member State is not required to grant the taxpayer the possibility to produce for himself or herself the evidence to show that the necessary conditions to obtain the deduction are satisfied where, due to the absence of a convention obligation, that Member State cannot verify the veracity of that evidence.

(1) Date lodged: 2.2.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/2

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 1/13)

(2013/C 226/02)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Does the acceptance of the accession of a third country to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction fall within the exclusive competence of the Union?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/2

Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission

(Opinion 2/13) (1)

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft international agreement - Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties))

(2015/C 065/02)

Language of the procedure: all official languages

Requested by

European Commission (represented by: L. Romero Requena, H. Krämer, C. Ladenburger and B. Smulders, acting as Agents)

Operative part

The agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not compatible with Article 6(2) TEU or with Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
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 )

Operative part

hereby :

( 1 ) Dismisses the application;

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Official - Actions - Submissions - Submission that members of a selection board were unqualified - Applicant not satisfying conditions for admission to tests - Irrelevant submission

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Submissions - Misuse of powers - Definition

Summary

1 . Where the applicant did not satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Notice of Competition for admission to the tests and would therefore have had to be rejected by any selection board, regardless of its composition, a submission challenging the selection board' s competence to judge the said tests is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the decision in the proceedings .

2 . A misuse of powers is not deemed to exist unless it is proved that in taking the measure in question the appointing authority has pursued an objective other than the legal one .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Action for annulment of measures - Measures against which actions may be brought - Letter addressed by a Member of the Commission to a Member State expressing an opinion as regards the compatibility of an agreement between undertakings with the competition rules of the Treaty - No binding legal effects - Exclusion - Taking account thereof by addressee Member State when adopting national measures - Immaterial

( EEC Treaty, Arts 5, 85 and 173; Regulation No 17 of the Council )

Summary

A letter addressed to the authorities of a Member State by a Member of the Commission which merely represents an initial evaluation, by the Commission' s departments, of an agreement between undertakings with regard to Article 85 of the Treaty and confines itself to suggesting amendments thereto, without producing binding legal effects such as those resulting from a decision granting exemption, a decision ordering interim measures or a request for information, the procedural rights of the parties to the agreement and any person who has lodged a complaint against it being expressly reserved, cannot be regarded as an act whose annulment may be sought in an action under Article 173 of the Treaty .

The fact that the said letter led the national authorities to which it was addressed to adopt measures of domestic law does not alter its legal nature . The Commission has no power either under Article 85 of the Treaty or Regulation No 17 or under Article 5 of the Treaty to address a binding decision to a Member State as regards the conduct to be adopted by the national authorities in connection with an agreement between undertakings falling under Article 85 of the Treaty,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Recovery of overpayments - Conditions - Patent lack of due reason for payment - Awareness of the official concerned - Criteria

(Staff Regulations, Art. 85)

Summary

In deciding whether the lack of due reason for a payment unduly received by an official was so patently clear that the official concerned could not have been unaware of it, in which case it is to be recovered under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, account must be taken in each case of the ability of the official concerned to carry out the necessary checks.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Period allowed - Public policy

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Date of lodging - Receipt by the administration

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2) )

Summary

1. The periods laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for lodging complaints and appeals are intended to ensure legal certainty. They are thus a matter of public policy and cannot be left to the discretion of the parties or the Court.

The fact that an institution replies to the substance of a complaint which is out of time and thus inadmissible cannot have the effect of derogating from the system of mandatory time-limits laid down by the aforesaid articles nor of depriving the administration of the right to raise, at the stage of the Court proceedings, an objection of inadmissibility on the grounds that the complaint was lodged out of time and still less of exempting the Court from its obligation to check that the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations have been complied with.

2. A complaint is lodged within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations when it reaches the institution to which it is addressed. The principle of legal certainty requires that the date on which the complaint is considered, vis-à-vis the official, to have been lodged with the administration must correspond with that on which the period allowed for replying to the complaint begins to run. That date is the date on which the administration is able to be apprised of the complaint; the mere posting of the complaint cannot of itself indicate with sufficient certainty the date on which the letter containing the complaint will be delivered to the institution to which it is addressed.

On the other hand, an official cannot be expected to suffer on account of factors beyond his control which may delay the transmission of his complaint, such as deficiencies or delays in transmission from one department to another within the institution in question. It is therefore the date of receipt in the institution' s post department which is decisive in determining whether the complaint has been lodged within the period of three months laid down by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Leave on personal grounds ° Expiry ° Reinstatement ° Obligations of the administration ° Extent ° Delay in reinstatement ° Service-related fault ° Financial damage ° Calculation to take account of advancement in step

(Staff Regulations, Arts 40(4)(d) and 44)

Summary

The reinstatement of an official on the expiry of leave on personal grounds, which the administration is required to effect under Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff Regulations, depends only on the existence of a vacant post in the category or service corresponding to the grade of the person concerned and on the fulfilment by him of the requirements for that post, to the exclusion of any additional condition such as an indication of interest on the part of the official in the vacant post or whether he works or not during his leave. Consequently, the discretion of the administration relates only to the assessment of the abilities of the person concerned, which must be effected by reference to the posts which he is capable of holding, and does not extend to the advisability of reinstating him or of examining his abilities, which the administrative authority must in any case do in the interests of the service.

The procedure for verifying the ability of the person concerned to perform the duties pertaining to a post, which must not be taken to require a perfect match between his qualifications and those required by the post in question, must be effective and must take its course in such a way that the applicant for reinstatement and the Community courts can verify that the obligations imposed on the administration by Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff Regulations have been fulfilled. In this connection, although the administration cannot be compelled to prove that it has examined the abilities of the official awaiting reinstatement where there is a manifest divergence between his abilities and the requirements of the vacant post, such proof must be adduced in all cases where, in the absence of such a manifest divergence, a complete verification of the abilities of the person concerned in relation to a particular post is necessary.

The failure to verify systematically the abilities of the official in question in relation to each vacant post to which he could have been reinstated constitutes a service-related fault which may give rise to liability on the administration' s part in so far as such failure delays the reinstatement of the person concerned and deprives him of his remuneration from the date when he could possibly have been reinstated to the date of his actual reinstatement. The calculation of the damage sustained by the person concerned must take account of the automatic advancement to higher steps in his grade which he would have been given under Article 44 of the Staff Regulations if he had been reinstated in the first vacant post suited to his abilities.