do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-57/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme — Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 4(3) and (4) — Concept of ‘doubts as to the compatibility of a notified measure with the common market’ — Decision not to raise objections — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures — ‘Pre-notification’ contacts — Procedural rights of interested parties — Electricity capacity market in the United Kingdom)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, production capacity








C_2021431EN.01001401.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/14






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-57/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 4(3) and (4) - Concept of ‘doubts as to the compatibility of a notified measure with the common market’ - Decision not to raise objections - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures - ‘Pre-notification’ contacts - Procedural rights of interested parties - Electricity capacity market in the United Kingdom)
(2021/C 431/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (represented by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, avocats, and by C. Ziegler, Rechtsanwalt), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially, F. Shibli, S. McCrory and Z. Lavery, and, subsequently, F. Shibli, S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 November 2018, Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission (T-793/14, EU:T:2018:790);










2.


Dismisses the action in Case T-793/14;










3.


Orders Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and before the Court of Justice;










4.


Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case T-560/21: Action brought on 2 September 2021 — TB v ENISA
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), executive, indemnification, job vacancy








C_2021481EN.01003001.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/30






Action brought on 2 September 2021 — TB v ENISA
(Case T-560/21)
(2021/C 481/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TB (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision taken by the ENISA Selection Board not to place the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates for the post of Head of Unit of the Executive Director Office (TA/AD 9) — Ref. ENISA-TA-70-AD- 2020-04;










—


annul the decision taken by the ENISA Selection Board not to place the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates regarding the post of Head of Unit of Corporate Support Services (TA/AD 9) — Ref. ENISA TA71-AD-2020-05;










—


annul also, in so far as necessary, the defendant’s decision of 8 June 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the abovementioned decisions;










—


order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Director Office (EDO) and Corporate Support Services (CSS) decisions are illegal, in so far as they result from the decision of 5 August 2020 publishing two vacancy notices for the posts of EDO and CSS Heads of Unit which is also illegal.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and lack of sufficient motivation of the EDO and CSS decisions.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the EDO decision is vitiated by a lack of impartiality of the Selection Board and by illegality — Breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and breach of Article 14 of ENISA Management Board Decision MB/2013/6.
Case C-34/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 — Article 3 — Open internet access — Article 3(1) — End users’ rights — Article 3(2) — Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights — Article 3(3) — Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic — Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures — Additional ‘zero tariff’ option — Limitation on bandwidth)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, consumer protection, equal treatment, mobile communication, regulation of telecommunications, telephone charges, transmission network








C_2021462EN.01001701.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen
(Case C-34/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - Limitation on bandwidth)
(2021/C 462/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on bandwidth, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, applied to video streaming, irrespective of whether it is streamed by partner operators or other content providers, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).


(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Case C-337/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — DM, LR v Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) — Alpes-Provence (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64/EC — Articles 58 and 60 — Payment service user — Notification of unauthorised payment transactions — Liability of the payment service provider for those transactions — Action for liability brought by the guarantor of a payment service user)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, damages, financial transaction, payment, regulation of transactions








C_2021462EN.01002001.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/20






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — DM, LR v Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) — Alpes-Provence
(Case C-337/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Articles 58 and 60 - Payment service user - Notification of unauthorised payment transactions - Liability of the payment service provider for those transactions - Action for liability brought by the guarantor of a payment service user)
(2021/C 462/20)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: DM, LR

Defendant: Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) — Alpes-Provence

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 58 and Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as precluding a payment service user from being able to trigger the liability of the provider of those services on the basis of a liability regime other than that provided for by those provisions, in the case where that user has failed to fulfil his or her obligation to notify laid down in that Article 58;










2.


Article 58 and Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as not precluding the guarantor of a payment service user from relying, by reason of a failure on the part of the payment service provider to fulfil its obligations relating to an unauthorised transaction, on the civil liability of such a provider, which is entitled to the guarantee, in order to challenge the amount of the guaranteed debt, in accordance with a contractual liability regime under the general law.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 352/08
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, cultural event, epidemic








C_2021352EN.01000801.xml










2.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/8






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 352/08)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


26 May 2021




Case No


86855




Decision No


071/21/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 scheme for cancelled and downscaled cultural events




Legal basis


Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for cancelled, closed or downscaled cultural events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021 as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


To remedy the shortage of liquidity that organisers and subcontractors to cultural events face following the COVID-19 outbreak




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


NOK 141 million




Intensity


For eligible organisers, a grant of up to 95 % of unavoidable costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021.
For eligible subcontractors, a grant of up to 50 % of loss of income and additional costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021.




Duration


26 May – 31 December 2021




Economic sectors


Cultural sector




Name and address of the granting authority







Arts Council Norway




P.O. Box 4808 Nydalen




N-0422 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-836/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gera — Germany) — Toropet Ltd. v Landkreis Greiz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public health — Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption — Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 — Article 9(d) and Article 10(a) and (f) — Classification of products — Decomposition, deterioration and presence of foreign bodies in the material — Impact on the initial classification)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, animal health, animal product, food contamination, food inspection, food safety, health risk, human nutrition








C_2021431EN.01002201.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/22






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gera — Germany) — Toropet Ltd. v Landkreis Greiz
(Case C-836/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption - Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 - Article 9(d) and Article 10(a) and (f) - Classification of products - Decomposition, deterioration and presence of foreign bodies in the material - Impact on the initial classification)
(2021/C 431/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gera

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Toropet Ltd.

Defendant: Landkreis Greiz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1), Article 9(h) and Article 10(a) and (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation), read in the light of Article 4(2) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that animal by-products originally classified as Category 3 material, in accordance with Article 10(a) and (f) thereof, which are altered by decomposition or deterioration, or mixed with foreign bodies, such as pieces of plaster or sawdust, so that they are no longer fit for human consumption and/or pose a risk to human or animal health, do not comply with the level of risk associated with that classification and must therefore be reclassified into a lower category.


(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case C-22/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 4, 5, 10 and 15 — Urban waste-water treatment — Secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water from agglomerations of certain dimensions — More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas — Article 4(3) TEU — Verification of data provided by the Member States — Obligation of sincere cooperation)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, pollution control measures, regions of Sweden, urban area, wastewater, water pollutant, water pollution, water treatment








C_2021462EN.01001402.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/14






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-22/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 4, 5, 10 and 15 - Urban waste-water treatment - Secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water from agglomerations of certain dimensions - More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas - Article 4(3) TEU - Verification of data provided by the Member States - Obligation of sincere cooperation)
(2021/C 462/13)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, C. Hermes, K. Simonsson and E. Ljung Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, C. Meyer-Seitz, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, read in conjunction with Article 10 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, by not ensuring that, before it is discharged, urban waste water from the agglomerations Lycksele, Malå and Pajala is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, and
declares that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU, since it did not, during the pre-litigation procedure, provide the European Commission with the information necessary for it to assess whether the waste water treatment plants for the agglomerations Habo and Töreboda satisfy the requirements of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.10407 - AIP/Alvance Dunkerque Target Business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 352/04
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Hauts-de-France, aluminium, economic concentration, industrial enterprise, investment company, merger control








C_2021352EN.01000401.xml










2.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/4






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.10407 - AIP/Alvance Dunkerque Target Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 352/04)
On 26 July 2021, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 27 August 2021, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.


(1)  OJ C 333, 19.8.2021, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-502/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — TP v Institut des Experts en Automobiles (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Article 5(2) — Automotive expert established in one Member State who moves to the territory of the host Member State in order to pursue, on a temporary and occasional basis, his profession — Refusal of the professional body of the host Member State, in which he was previously established, to enter him in the register of temporary and occasional service providers — Concept of ‘temporary and occasional provision of services’)
Date: 2021-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consultancy, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment








C_2021462EN.01002301.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/23






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — TP v Institut des Experts en Automobiles
(Case C-502/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 5(2) - Automotive expert established in one Member State who moves to the territory of the host Member State in order to pursue, on a temporary and occasional basis, his profession - Refusal of the professional body of the host Member State, in which he was previously established, to enter him in the register of temporary and occasional service providers - Concept of ‘temporary and occasional provision of services’)
(2021/C 462/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: TP

Respondent: Institut des Experts en Automobiles

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of the host Member State, within the meaning of that provision, which, as interpreted by the competent authorities of that Member State, does not allow a professional established in another Member State to pursue, on a temporary and occasional basis, his or her profession in the territory of the host Member State, on the grounds that that professional has had, in the past, an establishment in that Member State, that the services that he or she provides are to a certain degree recurrent or that he or she has equipped him or herself, in that Member State, with infrastructure, such as an office.


(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.