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

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 May 2022 — Germann Avocats LLC v European Commission

(Case C-233/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - European Union public contracts - Tendering procedure - Award of contracts - Decision to reject a tender and award the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Quality control - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2022/C 368/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Germann Avocats LLC (represented by: N. Scandamis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and J. Estrada de Solà, 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. Germann Avocats LLC is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società Eredi Raimondo Bufarini S.r.l. — Servizi Ambientali v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero della Transizione Ecologica, Comitato tecnico regionale delle Marche, Coordinamento per l’uniforme applicazione sul territorio nazionale di cui all’art. 11 del D.Lgs. 105/2015

(Case C-144/22) (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 45/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società Eredi Raimondo Bufarini S.r.l. — Servizi Ambientali

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero della Transizione Ecologica, Comitato tecnico regionale delle Marche, Coordinamento per l’uniforme applicazione sul territorio nazionale di cui all’art. 11 del D.Lgs. 105/2015

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: 28.2.2022.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2022 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Lecce — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against AB

(Case C-243/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope - Article 49 - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties - Exclusion of the criminal liability of the infringement on account of its lack of a particularly serious nature - National case-law prohibiting the application of a national rule before the Magistrate - Lack of connection to EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2023/C 7/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Lecce

Criminal proceedings against

AB

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Giudice di pace di Lecce (Magistrate, Italy), by decision of 28 January 2022.

(1) Date lodged: 6 April 2022
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/6

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

(Opinion 1/08)

(2008/C 183/10)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant:

Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. White, M. Huttunen and L. Prete, Agents)

Questions submitted to the Court:

1. Does the conclusion of the agreements with the affected WTO [World Trade Organisation] members, pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services], as described in this request for an Opinion, fall within the sphere of exclusive competence of the Community or within the sphere of shared competence of the Community and the Member States?
—

Do Articles 82(2) and 84 TFEU constitute appropriate legal bases for the act of the Council relating to the conclusion, in the name of the European Union, of the Istanbul Convention, or must that act be based on Articles 78(2), 82(2) and 83(1) TFEU, and is it necessary or possible to separate the decisions concerning the signature and the conclusion of the convention as a consequence of that choice of legal basis?
Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 30 April 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium

(Opinion 1/17) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

(Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA) - Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) - Establishment of a Tribunal and an Appellate Tribunal - Compatibility with primary EU law - Requirement to respect the autonomy of the EU legal order - Level of protection of public interests determined, in accordance with the EU constitutional framework, by the EU institutions - Equal treatment of Canadian investors and EU investors - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 20 - Access to the above Tribunals and their independence - Article 47 of the Charter - Financial accessibility - Commitment to guarantee that accessibility for natural persons and small and medium-sized enterprises - External and internal aspects of the requirement of independence - Appointment, remuneration and ethics of the Members - Role of the CETA Joint Committee - Binding interpretations of the CETA determined by that Committee)

(2019/C 220/02)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the Opinion

Section F of Chapter Eight of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016, is compatible with EU primary law.
Operative part



Operative part

( 1)Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Experience of the candidates - Criteria for assessment

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art . 5 )

2 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Experience of the candidates - Periods of vocational practice and vocational training completed by a Referendar - To be treated as experience

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art . 5 )

Summary

1 . The concept of experience required of candidates in a competition must be interpreted exclusively in the light of the aims of the competition, as set out in the general description of duties in the Notice of Competition .

Discrimination between candidates of different nationalities can be eliminated only by interpreting the concept of experience in accordance with rules specific to each competition .

An interpretation on the basis of the national law of each candidate would inevitably lead to differences in treatment, in view of the differences between the post-graduation systems in the individual Member States .

2 . Where the conditions for admission to the tests in an open competition organized to constitute a reserve of administrators allow periods of specialist or refresher training completed in the course of exercising a profession to be treated as experience, there is no reason why the alternate periods of vocational training and vocational activity completed by a Referendar during his Vorbereitungsdienst, in the framework of the organization of legal studies in the Federal Republic of Germany, should not be treated in their entirety as relevant experience .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Amicable settlement of the dispute confirmed during the personal appearance of the parties - No need to give a decision
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases - Medical report - Aggravation of invalidity following an altercation at work - Aggravation attributed by the medical report to a pre-existing occupational disease - Administration' s refusal to accept that the aggravation results from the official' s occupation - Inadmissible

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 73 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through administrative channels - Time-limits - Matter of public policy

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91 )

3 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Subject-matter and grounds must be the same in both cases

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91 )

Summary

1 . By deciding on adequate grounds that the aggravation of an official' s invalidity following an altercation at work was caused in the performance of his duties, inasmuch as the aggravation was in fact a result of the official' s pre-existing occupational disease, the Medical Committee establishes a comprehensible link between the medical findings in its report and the conclusions which it draws; it thus confines itself to drawing the appropriate medical conclusions from its findings relating to the cause of the disease and does not make appraisals of a legal nature .

Consequently, when a defendant institution relies on the link between an altercation and the resulting degree of invalidity in order to deduct that degree of invalidity from the total degree of invalidity to be awarded to an official, without taking into account the relationship between the aforementioned altercation and the official' s pre-existing psychopathic condition, that institution unlawfully replaces the conclusions of the report with its own appraisal of a matter of a purely medical nature . The fact that the conduct of which the official is accused constitutes a breach of his obligations under the Staff Regulations is not a ground for denying that the part of his degree of invalidity resulting from the incident resulted from his occupation, because his conduct does not call into question the relationship between the incident and the official' s prior psychopathic condition and does not therefore have any bearing on the causal link established by the Medical Committee between the pre-existing occupational disease and the aggravation of the degree of invalidity .

2 . The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of complaints and appeals are a matter of public policy : they were laid down with a view to ensuring legal certainty and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court .

3 . The conclusions submitted by an official to the Court must have the same subject-matter as the conclusions raised in the prior complaint through administrative channels and contain only heads of claim which are based on the same matters as the heads of claim relied on in the complaint .
Keywords

Operative part



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 )

Operative part

hereby :

( 1 ) Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

( 2 ) Orders the applicants to pay the costs jointly and severally, except those incurred by the intervener, which must be borne by the intervener itself .
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, Article 65)

2. Officials - Remuneration - Weightings - Five-yearly adjustment - Arrears of salary - Loss resulting from monetary depreciation - Claim for compensation - Unfounded in the absence of a fault on the part of the administration.

(Staff Regulations, Article 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 drafted and then adopted within a period which is justified by the circumstances of the case, any loss resulting for the persons concerned from the loss of purchasing power of their arrears of remuneration cannot, in the absence of any fault on the administration' s part, give rise to any entitlement to payment of compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Agreements betweeen undertakings ° Anti-competitive object or effect ° Effect on trade between Member States ° Criteria ° Assessed overall and not at the level of each participant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

2. Competition ° Community rules ° Infringements ° Intentional commission ° Meaning

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

3. Community law ° Principles ° Equal treatment ° Discrimination ° Meaning

4. Competition ° Fines ° Amount ° Commission' s margin of discretion

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

5. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Decision applying the competition rules

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

1. In order to establish whether an undertaking can be found to have infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the only relevant questions are whether it participated with other undertakings in an agreement having the object or effect of restricting competition and whether that agreement was liable to affect trade between Member States. The question whether the individual participation of the undertaking concerned in that agreement could, notwithstanding its limited scale, restrict competition or affect trade between Member States is entirely irrelevant.

Moreover, that provision does not require the restrictions of competition ascertained actually to have appreciably affected trade between Member States but merely requires that it be established that the agreement was capable of having that effect.

2. It is not necessary for an undertaking to have been aware that it was infringing the competition rules laid down in the Treaty for an infringement to be regarded as having been committed intentionally; it is sufficient that it could not have been unaware that the object of its conduct was the restriction of competition.

3. For there to be an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, comparable situations must have been treated differently.

4. The fines which the Commission imposes in the event of an infringement of Article 85 et seq. of the Treaty constitute an instrument of the Commission' s competition policy. The Commission must therefore be allowed a margin of discretion when fixing their amount, in order that it may channel the conduct of undertakings towards observance of the competition rules.

5. The purpose of the obligation under Article 190 of the Treaty to state the reasons on which a decision adversely affecting a person is based, is to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review as to the legality of those decisions and to provide the parties concerned with the necessary information so that they may establish whether or not those decisions are well founded. Consequently, the Commission is required to mention the matters of fact and of law and the considerations which led it to adopt a decision applying the competition rules.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Social security - Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Invalidity - Method of calculating allowance in the event of aggravation of injuries

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 73(2)(c); Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Art. 2)

2. Officials - Social security - Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Invalidity - Benefits - Lump sum - Compensation payable in the event of invalidity - Aggravation of injuries - Revaluation taking currency depreciation into account - Not permissible

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 73(2)(b) and (c))

Summary

1. The compensation provided for in Article 73(2)(c) of the Staff Regulations must be calculated, in the event of aggravation of injuries subsequent to the date of the accident, on the basis of the amounts of monthly salary received during the twelve months before the accident and not on the basis of the amounts of monthly salary received during the twelve months before the date of consolidation of the aggravation of the injuries.

Aggravation of injuries cannot be assimilated to a new accident within the meaning of Article 2 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease nor, consequently, can it constitute a new event giving rise to compensation. Any other interpretation would lead to introducing a system of compensation varying according to whether the injuries caused by the accident manifest themselves immediately after it or only at a later date, at the risk of bringing about unequal treatment of officials who have been the victim of an accident within the meaning of the abovementioned Rules.

2. The benefits referred to in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations are social security benefits and not benefits intended to make good loss and damage in the context of an action for damages. The allowance provided for in Article 73(2)(b) and (c) of the Staff Regulations therefore represents the performance not of an obligation to make good loss and damage but of an obligation to pay a fixed sum of money assessed on the basis of the lasting effects of an accident.

In the event of aggravation of the injuries subsequent to the accident, that allowance, by reason both of its lump-sum nature and of the lack of provisions in the Staff Regulations or in the Rules on Insurance against the Risk of Accident authorizing an increase, cannot be increased, once the injuries have become consolidated, in order to take account of currency depreciation which has occurred in the meantime.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions for grant - Actual and regular attendance of a primary educational establishment

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 3)

2. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Education costs - Expenses relating to psychological tests for educational guidance - Covered

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 3)

Summary

1. Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the right to education allowance arises on the first day of the month in which a child starts actually and regularly to attend a primary educational establishment.

The wording of that provision does not require that attendance of that establishment by the child should be compulsory under the national legislation applicable at the place where the person having legal custody of the child is resident. Since the sole criterion for the grant of education allowance is whether the education received by the child is indeed primary education, the grant of that allowance cannot be excluded where the child starts to attend a primary educational establishment before the age of compulsory school attendance.

2. Expenses relating to psychological tests taken by an official' s dependent child in order to determine the type of teaching corresponding to the child' s abilities and needs are, by virtue of their purpose, education costs and are reimbursable under the education allowance provided for in Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations up to the maximum monthly amount referred to in the first paragraph of that provision.