do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-167/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden v Commission (State aid — Polish electricity market — Capacity mechanism — Decision not to raise any objections — Aid scheme — Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU — Concept of doubts — Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Serious difficulties — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, equal treatment, principle of proportionality








C_2021471EN.01004001.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/40






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden v Commission
(Case T-167/19) (1)

(State aid - Polish electricity market - Capacity mechanism - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Concept of doubts - Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 471/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Tempus Energy Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany), T Energy Sweden AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Derenne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Ryan and A. Klosok, Solicitors, and by T. Janssens and K. Bojarojć-Bartnicka, lawyers), Enel X Polska z o.o. (Warsaw) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro, S. Ventura and L. Caroli, lawyers), Enspirion sp. z o.o. (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: A. Czech, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 601 final of 7 February 2018 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity mechanism in Poland, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid SA.46100 (2017/N)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tempus Energy Germany GmbH and T Energy Sweden AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A., Enel X Polska z o.o. and Enspirion sp. z o.o.;










3.


Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case C-458/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — ClientEarth v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency (Appeal — Action for annulment — Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 3549 final — Authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Articles 60 and 62 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Commission Decision C(2016) 8454 final — Rejection of the request)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, health risk, market approval, plasticiser








C_2021481EN.01000801.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — ClientEarth v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency
(Case C-458/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 3549 final - Authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Articles 60 and 62 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Commission Decision C(2016) 8454 final - Rejection of the request)
(2021/C 481/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister, and J. Stratford BL)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and F. Becker, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case C-408/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Danilo Poggiolini v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Single statute for Members of the European Parliament — Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies — Modification of pension entitlements — Act adversely affecting an official — Provisional position — Independent legal effects)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, pension scheme








C_2021490EN.01001201.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Danilo Poggiolini v European Parliament
(Case C-408/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Modification of pension entitlements - Act adversely affecting an official - Provisional position - Independent legal effects)
(2021/C 490/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Danilo Poggiolini (represented by: F. Sorrentino, A. Sandulli and B. Cimino, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Falqui and Poggiolini v Parliament (T-347/19 and T-348/19, not published, EU:T:2020:303), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in case T-348/19 for annulment of the note of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of pension he receives following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decision of the European Parliament set out in the letter of 8 July 2019;










2.


Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament before the General Court in Case T-348/19;










3.


Refers Case T-348/19 back to the General Court for a ruling on the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in Case T-348/19 for annulment of that note and that decision;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Case T-645/21: Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Bloom v Parliament and Council
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aid to undertakings, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, environmental protection, fishing regulations, fishing vessel, illegal fishing, marine environment, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality








C_2021481EN.01003901.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/39






Action brought on 6 October 2021 — Bloom v Parliament and Council
(Case T-645/21)
(2021/C 481/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bloom (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Saynac and L. Chovet-Ballester, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul in part, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (OJ 2021 L 247, p. 1), in particular Articles 17, 18 and 19 thereof;










—


order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in their entirety.





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 infringement of the objectives of sustainable development and a high level of environmental protection. The applicant claims that Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (‘the EMFAF Regulation’) reintroduces subsidies that are detrimental to the marine environment, in disregard of the objectives of sustainable development and a high level of environmental protection, reaffirmed by EU legislation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law, namely the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the EMFAF Regulation are contrary to the precautionary principle enshrined in Article 191(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the effects of the aforementioned articles are contrary to the principle of proportionality applied in fisheries matters.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean of 9 July 2004, and the principle of performance of agreements in good faith. The applicant maintains that Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the EMFAF Regulation run counter to the obligations relating to tackling over-fishing and the conservation of marine resources laid down in those conventions. The Parliament and the Council infringed the principle of performance of agreements in good faith by adopting the contested articles.
Case T-404/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Translation services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Method of evaluation — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency — Obligation to state reasons — Duty of diligence — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, services contract, tendering, translation, transparency in decision-making








C_2021481EN.01002501.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/25






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission
(Case T-404/20) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Translation services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Method of evaluation - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of diligence - Principle of sound administration)
(2021/C 481/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in the letter of 17 April 2020 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 22 (EN>MT) in tendering procedure TRAD 19 and awarding that lot to another tenderer, and for annulment of ‘all related decisions’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Global Translation Solutions ltd. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case C-13/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Top System SA v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Legal protection of computer programs — Directive 91/250/EEC — Article 5 — Exceptions to the restricted acts — Acts necessary to enable the lawful purchaser to correct errors — Concept — Article 6 — Decompilation — Conditions)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright exception, maintenance, software








C_2021490EN.01000801.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/8






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Top System SA v Belgian State
(Case C-13/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Legal protection of computer programs - Directive 91/250/EEC - Article 5 - Exceptions to the restricted acts - Acts necessary to enable the lawful purchaser to correct errors - Concept - Article 6 - Decompilation - Conditions)
(2021/C 490/05)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Top System SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part;










2.


Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case T-668/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — NZ v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 — Decision not to include the applicant's name on the competition reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board — Broad discretionary power of the selection board — Failure to communicate the intermediate marks and the weighting of the components of the oral test)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional qualifications








C_2021490EN.01004001.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/40






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — NZ v Commission
(Case T-668/20) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 - Decision not to include the applicant's name on the competition reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board - Broad discretionary power of the selection board - Failure to communicate the intermediate marks and the weighting of the components of the oral test)
(2021/C 490/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: NZ (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board of 29 April 2020, taken after a review, not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 29 April 2020, by which the selection board for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 refused, after a review, to include the name of NZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 10, in the field of ‘Coordination, communication, human resources and budgetary management, audit’;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Case C-50/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax system — Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification for the difference in treatment)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, goodwill, nationality of legal persons, shareholding, tax relief








C_2021481EN.01000301.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL v European Commission
(Case C-50/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)
(2021/C 481/03)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL (represented: initially by M. Linares-Gil and M. Muñoz Pérez, abogados, and subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: R. Kanitz and J. Möller, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1793 of 6 October 2021 establishing a fisheries closure for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean for vessels flying the flag of Portugal
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Portugal, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2021361EN.01000101.xml










12.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 361/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2021/1793
of 6 October 2021
         
establishing a fisheries closure for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean for vessels flying the flag of Portugal


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 (2) lays down quotas for 2021.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock of bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean for vessels flying the flag of or registered in Portugal have exhausted the quota allocated for 2021.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated for 2021 to Portugal for the stock of bigeye in the Atlantic Ocean referred to in the Annex shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in Article 1 by vessels flying the flag of or registered in Portugal shall be prohibited from the date set out in the Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 October 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Virginijus SINKEVIČIUS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 31, 29.1.2021, p. 31).




ANNEX






No



17/TQ92





MEMBER STATE



Portugal





STOCK



BET/ATLANT (including BET/*ATLLL and BET/*ATLPS)




SPECIES



Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)





ZONE



Atlantic Ocean





CLOSING DATE



20/09/2021