ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio de Stato — Italy) — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

(Case C-467/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Approximation of laws - Electronic communications networks and services - Restrictions on the installation of mobile phone base transceiver stations established by local authorities - Insufficient details concerning the reasons why an answer to the question referred is necessary for the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio de Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Venezia

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

Intervener: Regione Veneto

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 22 July 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Toledo — Spain) — KQ v Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM)

(Case C-226/21) (1)

(Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Exemption from providing on-call medical services on the grounds of age granted solely to permanent workers)

(2022/C 119/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Toledo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KQ

Defendant: Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM)

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex 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 pursuant to which the right to an exemption from providing on-call services is granted to permanent workers but not to fixed-term workers.

(1) Date lodged: 8 April 2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 31 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M.M.

(Case C-783/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - No dispute before the referring court - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 294/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

M.M.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (District Court, Florence, Italy), made by decision of 11 November 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) Date of lodging: 16.12.2021
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2022 — Nec Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-786/21 P) (1)

(2022/C 222/43)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — Proceedings brought by MK

(Case C-709/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/70)

Language of the case: Romanian

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

(1) OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Centro Petroli Roma Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-597/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Exceptions to that obligation - Criteria - Situations in which the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt - Condition related to the national court or tribunal of last instance being convinced that the matter would be equally obvious to the other courts or tribunals of last instance of the Member States and to the Court of Justice)

(2023/C 35/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centro Petroli Roma Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Operative part of the order

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may refrain from referring to the Court a question concerning the interpretation of EU law and take upon itself the responsibility for resolving it where the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The question whether such a possibility exists must be assessed on the basis of the characteristic features of EU law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the European Union.

That national court or tribunal is not required to establish in detail that the other courts or tribunals of last instance of the Member States and the Court would give the same interpretation, but must have obtained the conviction, according to an assessment which takes account of those factors, that the matter would be equally obvious to those other national courts or tribunals and to the Court.

(1) Date lodged: 27.9.2021.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri v PF

(Case C-569/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners - Justification)

(2023/C 15/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri

Respondent: PF

Operative part of the order

Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the fixing of a maximum age limit of 30 years for participation in a competition aimed at recruiting police psychologists.

(1) Date lodged: 16.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt — Germany) — HK v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

(Case C-2/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/35)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

(Case C-51/22) (1)

(2023/C 24/45)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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 Court of 8 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — C.D.A. v I.J., N.L.

(Case C-205/22) (1)

(Removal from the register)

(2022/C 408/28)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.D.A.

Defendants: I.J., N.L.

Operative part of the order

Case C-205/22 is removed from the Register of the Court.

(1) Date lodged: 16.3.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/19

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

(Opinion 2/13)

2013/C 260/32

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

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

Question submitted to the Court

Is the Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms compatible with the Treaties?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/2

Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 8 March 2011 — Council of the European Union

(Opinion 1/09) (1)

(Opinion delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement - Creation of a unified patent litigation system - European and Community Patents Court - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the Treaties)

2011/C 211/03

Language of the case: all the official languages.

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Request for an opinion — Compatibility, with the EC Treaty, of a draft agreement creating a unified patent litigation system — European and Community Patents Court, composed of a court of first instance and a court of appeal — Attribution to that court of jurisdiction to determine, in particular, disputes relating to the validity and/or application of Community patents, linked to the power or the obligation for that court to refer to the Court of Justice questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EC Treaty or the validity and interpretation of acts adopted by the European Union institutions — Adverse effect on the autonomy of the Community legal order and the primacy of Community law?

Operative part

The envisaged agreement creating a unified patent litigation system (currently called ‘European and Community Patents Court’) is not compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Purpose - Consistency between the complaint and the application - Matter of public policy raised by the Court of its own motion - Submission not appearing in the complaint - Conditions regarding admissibility

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Rules of Procedure, Art . 92(2 ) )

2 . Officials - Recruitment - Special rules applicable to overseas staff of the European Association for Cooperation

( Staff Regulations, Arts 31 and 32; Council Regulation No 3018/87, Art . 3 )

Summary

1 . The question of admissibility in connection with consistency between the prior complaint through official channels and the application to the Court is a matter of public policy, inasmuch as it relates to the legality of the administrative procedure, which constitutes an essential procedural requirement . The Court is justified in considering the matter of its own motion in particular in view of the very purpose of the administrative procedure, namely to permit an amicable settlement of the differences which have arisen between officials or servants and the administration .

The Court must dismiss as inadmissible any submission which was not relied on in the complaint and which was first raised in the course of the written procedure before it, since the official complaint not only contains no reference to that submission but also does not include any argument from which the defendant institution could have inferred that the applicant intended to make the submission at issue .

2 . When the appointing authority appoints an official on the basis of the normal recruitment rules under the Staff Regulations, the relevant classification criteria may be applied in the context of Articles 31 and 32 thereof .

Where, on the other hand, an official has been appointed pursuant to Regulation No 3018/87 introducing special transitional measures for the recruitment of overseas staff of the European Association for Cooperation as officials of the European Communities, the classification of the person concerned in the appointment decision is lawful in so far as it was determined in accordance with the derogation set out in Article 3 of the regulation, under which the criterion automatically applying relates to the level of salary previously received from the said Association, whose application therefore rules out any reference to the classification criteria under the normal rules .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1.Officials - Refund of expenses - Installation allowance - Voluntary termination of service before the expiry of a period of two years - Refund by the official - Point in time at which the period begins to run - Date of entry into the service of the Communities

( Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art . 5(5 ) )

2.Officials - Refund of expenses - Installation allowance - Voluntary termination of service before the expiry of a period of two years - Refund by the official - Object

( Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art . 5(5 ) )

3.Officials - Refund of expenses - Installation allowance - Conditions for grant - Official settling with his family

( Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art . 5(3 ) )

Summary

1.The period of two years referred to in Article 5(5 ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be calculated from the official' s entering the service of the Communities and not from his taking up the duties which give rise to the grant of the installation allowance .

2.Reimbursement by the official of part of the installation allowance calculated proportionately to the part of the period of two years which remains to run is not intended to take account of the duration of the installation, since the cost of an installation for a short period is the same as that of installation for a longer period .

Its object is to make the Communities responsible for paying the whole of the installation allowance paid on the posting of the official to a place of employment only when the service relationship between the Communities and the official has been sufficiently consolidated by two years spent by the official in the service of the Communities . On the other hand the Communities' responsibility for paying the installation allowance in part is provided for where the official leaves the service of the Communities less than two years after entering it . It would be contrary to the proper management of public funds for the Communities to assume full responsibility for paying the installation allowance of an official with whom, as a result of an act on his part, the service relationship has not been consolidated .

3.When the settlement of the official and his family is established the official does not have to show either the existence of actual expenses or how long he settles with his family in order to receive the installation allowance equal to two months' basic salary .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Provisional statement of pension rights - Excluded

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Request under Article 90(1 ) of the Staff Regulations - Concept

( Staff Regulations, Art . 90(1 ) )

Summary

1 . The concept of an act adversely affecting an official covers any act capable of directly affecting a given legal situation .

A provisional calculation of an official' s pension rights, provided by the administration by way of information, subject to definitive determination of the rights of the person concerned upon his being awarded a pension, is not be regarded as constituting a decision, which as such is capable of being the subject of an action .

2 . A request made by an official by telephone, manifestly intended merely to secure information about pension rights, cannot be regarded as a formal request for a decision by the administration within the meaning of Article 90(1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Drawing up - Delay - Unacceptable - Maladministration giving rise to non-material damage

( Staff Regulations, Art . 43 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Purpose - Directions to be issued by the Court to the administration - Inadmissible - Administration ordered to review an official' s administrative situation - Possible remedy where the administration has incurred liability - Admissible

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 )

Summary

1 . A delay of three years in drawing up a staff report is not compatible with the principle of sound administration . Neither the absence of a director nor the reorganization of a department can justify such disregard of the time-limit laid down by the general implementing provisions adopted by the defendant institution regarding the preparation of staff reports .

Such a delay constitutes maladministration which causes non-material damage to the official concerned as a result of the uncertain and anxious state of mind in which he is placed by the fact that his personal file is irregular and incomplete .

2 . In an action for annulment, the Court cannot, without encroaching on the prerogatives of the administrative authority, order a Community institution to take the measures necessary for the enforcement of a judgment by which a decision is annulled .

On the other hand, a request by an official that the administration be ordered in general terms to review his administrative situation must be considered admissible in an action in which the Court enjoys unlimited jurisdiction provided that, without the discretion which must be available to the appointing authority thereby being affected, such a measure appears to be designed to ensure that any reparation of the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the late preparation of the staff report is appropriate .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Formal conditions - Complaint drafted by the official' s lawyer - Signature of the person concerned - Not a substantial formality

( Staff Regulations, Art . 90 )

2 . Procedure - Bringing of actions - Authority to act ad litem - Proof of authority not required

( Rules of Procedure, Art . 38(3 ) )

3 . Officials - Leave - Annual leave - Carrying-over of unused leave - Detailed procedure for so doing not specified

( Staff Regulations, Art . 57; Annex V, Art . 4, first paragraph )

4 . Officials - Leave - Annual leave - Withdrawal on the ground of undisputed absences due to illness - Not permissible

( Staff Regulations, Art . 57 )

Operative part

( 1 ) Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 1 February 1989 in so far as it concerns the carrying-over of leave pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations;

( 2 ) Orders the European Parliament to pay to Gabriella Virgili-Schettini compensation equivalent to 27 days of unused leave, to be calculated in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations;

( 3 ) Dismisses the remainder of the application;

( 4 ) Orders the European Parliament to pay all the costs .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Recruitment - Classification in step - Award of additional seniority - Account to be taken of experience - Discretion of the administration - Only studies evidenced by a diploma to be treated as equivalent to experience

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 32, second paragraph)

2. Officials - Recruitment - Assignment of grade and classification in step - Internal directive of an institution on the applicable criteria - Legal effects

Operative part

hereby:

(1) Dismisses the application;

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Recruitment - Examination of applications in the light of the conditions stated in the vacancy notice - Appointing authority' s discretion - Judicial review - Limits

2 . Officials - Decision adversely affecting a person - Obligation to state reasons - Decision rejecting an application under Article 29(2 )

( Staff Regulations, Art . 25, second paragraph and Art . 29(2 ) )

3 . Officials - Decision adversely affecting a person - Obligation to state reasons - Failure to comply - Rectification during legal proceedings

( Staff Regulations, Art . 25, second paragraph )

Summary

1 . It is for the appointing authority to assess whether a candidate fulfils the conditions required by the vacancy notice and that assessment may be questioned only in the event of manifest error . Consequently, the Court of First Instance cannot substitute itself for the appointing authority and review the latter' s assessment of the professional abilities of the candidates, except in so far as it finds a manifest error of assessment .

2 . The rule laid down in the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, according to which any decision adversely affecting an official must state the grounds on which it is based, applies to a decision rejecting an application under the recruitment procedure in Article 29(2 ) of the Staff Regulations . The latter provision, in spite of its exceptional character, cannot take precedence over a rule of the Staff Regulations formulated in a general and unconditional manner .

3 . In exceptional cases, as a result of the explanations given in the course of legal proceedings, the argument that insufficient reasons were given may lose its purpose and cease to justify the annulment of the decision in question .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Action - Prior administrative complaint - Time-limit - Matter of public policy

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials - Action - Prior administrative complaint - Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged within the time-limit - Subsequent express decision - Confirmatory measure - Precluded

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

Summary

1. Since the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of complaints and appeals were laid down with a view to ensuring clarity and legal certainty, they are a matter of public policy and the parties are absolutely bound by them.

Furthermore, the fact that an institution did not point out that the complaint was out of time during the pre-litigation stage cannot deprive the administration of the right to raise an objection of inadmissibility at the stage of the Court proceedings, still less exempt the Court from the obligation incumbent upon it to check that the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations have been complied with.

2. The express rejection of a request after an implied decision rejecting that same request cannot enable the official concerned to continue the pre-litigation procedure by opening for him a new period for lodging a complaint, since that rejection is purely in the nature of a confirmatory measure.