do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-583/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — NC v BA, DA, DV and CG
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, labour relations, notary, transfer of businesses








C_2022051EN.01001801.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — NC v BA, DA, DV and CG
(Case C-583/21)
(2022/C 51/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NC

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Case T-606/21: Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, food safety, foodstuff, labelling, market approval, soya bean, transgenic plant








C_2021471EN.01005301.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/53






Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission
(Case T-606/21)
(2021/C 471/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021, refusing to revoke or to amend the defendant’s implementing decision (EU) 2021/66 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified soybean MON 87751 x MON 87701 x MON 87708 x MON 89788 and its sub-combinations in the EU;










—


order any other measure deemed appropriate; and










—


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 that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under real-world conditions of repeated and/or high application of the two herbicides to which the modified soybean expresses tolerance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential for toxicity, immunogenicity and/or allergenicity in the modified soybean as a result of synergistic effects between the proteins it is genetically modified to express, naturally occurring protease inhibitors in soybeans, exposure to herbicide and/or herbicide residue in the harvest and/or failed to require animal feeding trials of the stack to be conducted.






(1)  OJ 2021 L 26, p. 44.

(2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).
Case C-585/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — TA v BA, DA, DV and CG
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, labour relations, notary, transfer of businesses








C_2022051EN.01001901.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — TA v BA, DA, DV and CG
(Case C-585/21)
(2022/C 51/25)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TA

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Case C-611/21 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2021 by Lajos Bese against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 July 2021 in Case T-128/21, Bese v EUIPO — Mixtec (rubyred CRANBERRY)
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, beverage, foodstuff, fruit, meat, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2022191EN.01000602.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/6






Appeal brought on 20 September 2021 by Lajos Bese against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 July 2021 in Case T-128/21, Bese v EUIPO — Mixtec (rubyred CRANBERRY)
(Case C-611/21 P)
(2022/C 191/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lajos Bese

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 11 February 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice held that the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible and that Mr Lajos Bese should bear his own costs.
Statement of the European Commission on the advisory nature of strategic boards as in in Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1529 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) 2021/C 380 I/06
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, European integration, European neighbourhood policy, Western Balkans, administrative reform, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, economic reform, political reform, pre-accession aid








CI2021380EN.01000601.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 380/6






Statement of the European Commission on the advisory nature of strategic boards as in in Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1529 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III)
(2021/C 380 I/06)
The European Commission recalls that as laid down in Article 12 of the IPA III Regulation, the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF) strategic board is an advisory body to the Commission. This is aligned with Article 33 of the NDICI – Global Europe Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021, which refers to the WBIF and EFSD+ strategic boards. These strategic boards do not have decision-making powers in the context of the implementation of the EU budget. The Rules of Procedures for the WBIF strategic board will be established on this basis.
Statement by the European Parliament on Council Decision 2010/427/EU and strategic coordination 2021/C 380 I/02
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, EU programme, European neighbourhood policy, cooperation policy, development policy, financial aid, nuclear safety, overseas countries and territories, pre-accession aid








CI2021380EN.01000201.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 380/2






Statement by the European Parliament on Council Decision 2010/427/EU and strategic coordination
(2021/C 380 I/02)
The European Parliament notes that the references to the Union’s external action instruments in Article 9 of Council Decision 2010/427/EU are obsolete, and therefore considers that, for the sake of legal clarity, that Article should be updated, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union, in order to take into account the Union external assistance instruments applicable in the period of the 2021-2027 MFF, namely the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation and the Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland.
The European Parliament calls on the Commission and on the European External Action Service (EEAS) to establish a strategic coordination structure composed of all relevant Commission services and of the EEAS in order to ensure coherence, synergy, transparency and accountability in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2021/947 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (1).


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, amending and repealing Decision No 466/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009 (OJ L 209, 14.6.2021, p. 1).
Case T-598/21: Action brought on 20 September 2021 — Euranimi v Commission
Date: 2021-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, tariff quota, third country








C_2021452EN.01004501.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/45






Action brought on 20 September 2021 — Euranimi v Commission
(Case T-598/21)
(2021/C 452/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1029 of 24 June 2021, amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 to prolong the safeguard measure on imports of certain steel products (OJ 2021, L 225I, p. 1);










—


order the European Commission to bear the costs of the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.





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 that the Commission breaches the article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 march 2015 on common rules for imports (1) by committing a manifest error of assessment in the determination of serious injury and likelihood of serious injury;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s assessments of the relevant market data and the counterfactual related to terminating the safeguards are manifestly erroneous. Considering the exceptional world market situation, the Commission also breaches its duty to take into account the post investigating period (IP) year 2021 situation.






(1)  OJ L 83, p. 16, 27.3.2015