do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-22/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 14 January 2021 — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, freedom of movement, household








C_2021138EN.01001802.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/18






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 14 January 2021 — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-22/21)
(2021/C 138/24)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SRS, AA

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred







1.


Can the term member of the household of an EU citizen, as used in Article 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1), be defined so as to be of universal application throughout the EU and if so what is that definition?










2.


If that term cannot be defined, by what criteria are judges to look at evidence so that national courts may decide according to a settled list of factors who is or who is not a member of the household of an EU citizen for the purpose of freedom of movement?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).
Corrigendum to Joint Conclusions of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Policy Objectives and Priorities for 2020-2024 (Official Journal of the European Union C 451I of 29 December 2020) 2021/C 15 I/02
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU strategy, climate change policy, coronavirus disease, digitisation, economic recovery, epidemic, legislative programme (EU), policymaking, the EU's international role








CI2021015EN.01000201.xml










14.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 15/2






Corrigendum to Joint Conclusions of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Policy Objectives and Priorities for 2020-2024

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 451I of 29 December 2020
)

(2021/C 15 I/02)
Publication (2021/C 451 I/02) on page 4 is to be considered null and void.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 15/04
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Eastern Finland, Finland, Lapland, Oulu, Southern Finland, Western Finland, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2021015EN.01000401.xml










14.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/4






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 15/04)






Member State


Finland




Routes concerned


Helsinki – Joensuu
Helsinki – Jyväskylä
Helsinki – Kajaani
Helsinki – Kemi
Helsinki – Kokkola




Deadline for submission of tenders


61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation




Contract period


1 April–31 December 2021




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge







Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom)




Address:




PO Box 320




FI-00059 Traficom




FINLAND




Email: kirjaamo@traficom.fi
Internet: www.traficom.fi/en/transport/aviation/air-public-service-obligations
Corrigendum to Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission – EU Legislative Priorities for 2021 (Official Journal of the European Union C 451 I of 29 December 2020) 2021/C 15 I/01
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, anti-discriminatory measure, area of freedom, security and justice, democracy, digitisation, economic and social cohesion, environmental law, legislative programme (EU), money laundering, the EU's international role








CI2021015EN.01000101.xml










14.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 15/1






Corrigendum to Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission – EU Legislative Priorities for 2021

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 451 I of 29 December 2020
)

(2021/C 15 I/01)
Publication (2020/C 451 I/01) on page 1 is to be considered null and void.
Case C-450/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings initiated by Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Manipulation of the bidding procedure — Determination of the duration of the infringement period — Inclusion of the period during which the cartel members implemented the anticompetitive agreement — Economic effects of anticompetitive behaviour — Cessation of the infringement on the definitive award of the contract)
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, cartel, competition policy, invitation to tender, price agreement, tendering, works contract








C_2021079EN.01001101.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/11






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings initiated by Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto
(Case C-450/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Manipulation of the bidding procedure - Determination of the duration of the infringement period - Inclusion of the period during which the cartel members implemented the anticompetitive agreement - Economic effects of anticompetitive behaviour - Cessation of the infringement on the definitive award of the contract)
(2021/C 79/12)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

Intervening parties: Eltel Group Oy, Eltel Networks Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an undertaking which has allegedly participated in a single and continuous infringement of that provision, the most recent constituent element of which consists in the concerted submission with its competitors of a tender for the award of a public works contract, has won the contract and concluded with the contracting authority a works contract determining the essential characteristics of that contract and, in particular, the overall price to be paid for those works, the performance and payment of the price for which are staggered over time, the infringement period corresponds to the period up to the date of signature of the contract concluded between the undertaking and the contracting authority on the basis of the concerted bid submitted by that undertaking. It is for the national court to ascertain the date on which the essential characteristics of the relevant contract and, in particular, the total price to be paid for the work, have been definitively determined.


(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Case C-744/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2013/59/Euratom — Basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation — Article 106 — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health risk, infringement of EU law, ionising radiation, national implementing measure, occupational safety, radiation protection, safety standard








C_2021079EN.01001402.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/14






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-744/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2013/59/Euratom - Basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation - Article 106 - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
(2021/C 79/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, and by failing to communicate to the European Commission the text of the provisions of national law adopted, where necessary, in the field governed by Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106(1) and (3) of that directive;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case C-387/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel BVBA v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 57(6) — Optional grounds for exclusion — Measures taken by the economic operator to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of an optional ground for exclusion — Obligation of the economic operator to provide evidence of such measures on its own initiative — Direct effect)
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, public procurement, tendering








C_2021079EN.01000701.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel BVBA v Vlaams Gewest
(Case C-387/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57(6) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Measures taken by the economic operator to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of an optional ground for exclusion - Obligation of the economic operator to provide evidence of such measures on its own initiative - Direct effect)
(2021/C 79/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel BVBA

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015, must be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby an economic operator is required, at the time of submission of their requests to participate or of their tenders, to provide voluntarily evidence of the corrective measures taken to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence, in respect of that operator, of an optional ground for exclusion referred to in Article 57(4) of that directive, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, where such an obligation does not arise either from the applicable national rules or from the tender specifications. By contrast, Article 57(6) of that directive, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, does not preclude such an obligation where it is laid down in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner in the applicable national rules and is brought to the attention of the economic operator concerned by means of the tender specifications.










2.


Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, must be interpreted as having direct effect.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case C-63/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Articles 4 and 19 — Regional law adopted by the autonomous region of a Member State — Contribution towards the purchase of petrol and diesel subject to excise duties — Article 6(c) — Exemption from or reduction of excise duty — Concept of ‘refunding all or part of’ the amount of taxation — No evidence of a link between that contribution and excise duties)
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Friuli-Venezia Giulia, diesel fuel, excise duty, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, petrol, regional law, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2021072EN.01000401.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-63/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Articles 4 and 19 - Regional law adopted by the autonomous region of a Member State - Contribution towards the purchase of petrol and diesel subject to excise duties - Article 6(c) - Exemption from or reduction of excise duty - Concept of ‘refunding all or part of’ the amount of taxation - No evidence of a link between that contribution and excise duties)
(2021/C 72/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G.M. De Socio, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1577 of 21 September 2020 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (Official Journal of the European Union L 361 of 30 October 2020)
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Taric, customs regulations, specification of tariff heading, tariff preference








L_2021011EN.01002101.xml










14.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 11/21







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1577 of 21 September 2020 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 361 of 30 October 2020
)


On page 221:
for:









 



2804 70 10 



– – Red phosphorus. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .


5,5


—




 



2804 70 90 



– – Other. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .


5,5


—




read:










★




2804 70 10 



– – Red phosphorus. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..


5,5


—





★




2804 70 90 



– – Other. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .


5,5


—
Case C-24/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 14 January 2021 — PH v Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy, cereal-growing, maize, measure having equivalent effect, transgenic plant








C_2021391EN.01000202.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 14 January 2021 — PH v Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia
(Case C-24/21)
(2021/C 391/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PH

Defendant: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

Questions referred







1.


Is the ban imposed by Article 2.1 of Legge Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia n. 5/2011, which introduces coexistence measures that amount to a ban on cultivating maize variety MON 810 in the territory of the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), consistent with or contrary to the overall scheme of Directive 2001/18, (1) particularly in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2) and Recommendation 2[0]10/C 200/01 (3)?










2.


Does that ban also constitute a measure having equivalent effect and is it thus contrary to Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU?






(1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops (OJ 2010 C 200, p. 1).
Case T-12/21: Action brought on 14 January 2021 — PJ v EIT
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, protection of privacy, staff regulations (EU), teleworking








C_2021079EN.01003401.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/34






Action brought on 14 January 2021 — PJ v EIT
(Case T-12/21)
(2021/C 79/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PJ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 17 December 2020 by which the executive director denies the applicant the benefit of the exceptions to the prohibition on teleworking outside the country of employment and dismisses her request to telework from her place of origin submitted on 15 December 2020;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 5.1.b. of the Guidelines applicable to the Commission and transposed to EIT and, second, of the applicant’s acquired rights. Next, the applicant invokes breach of the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant also alleges arbitrary interpretation of the ‘travel restrictions’ concept, lack of predictability and legal certainty, infringement of the national interpretations of those same sanitary measures introduced in each Member State. Finally, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to private and family life, failure to take into account her situation beyond the actual and justified interest of the service and disproportionate harm to her interests.










2.


Second plea in law relating to a plea of illegality regarding the rules in force if they are to be considered as prohibiting the applicant from teleworking from her place of origin in her situation based on infringement of the principles of equal treatment, right to private and family life, wellbeing at work, the principle of legal certainty and predictability. The applicant also invokes force majeure and infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the restriction on her rights is unlawful and disproportionate.
Case C-23/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 14 January 2021 — IO v Wallonische Region
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Walloon region (Belgium), establishment, freedom to provide services, manager, motor vehicle, remuneration of work, residence, right of establishment, vehicle registration








C_2021128EN.01001501.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 14 January 2021 — IO v Wallonische Region
(Case C-23/21)
(2021/C 128/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IO

Defendant: Walloon Region

Questions referred







1.


Does national legislation which, as applied by the Walloon Region, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided to a manager (or freelancer) who is resident in Belgium by an undertaking (with or without legal personality) established in an EU Member State other than Belgium contingent upon that manager (or freelancer) carrying in the vehicle an attestation of the undertaking (with or without legal personality) or evidence of engagement (that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001), conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Article 49 (freedom of establishment) and Article 56 (freedom to provide services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)?










2.


Is the requirement that, in order to be able to use a company vehicle registered abroad and made available to him or her, a partner and manager living in Belgium must receive a salary or income from the undertaking, consistent with the relevant provisions of EU law and in particular Articles 49 (freedom of establishment) and 56 (freedom of movement of services) TFEU?










3.


Is national legislation, as described above and applied by the Walloon Region, justified by requirements of public security or other protective measures and is compliance with the national legislation, interpreted as meaning that both evidence of engagement and an attestation of the provision of the vehicle must be carried in the vehicle, necessary in order to attain the objective pursued or could the objective have been attained by other, less strict and formalistic means?