do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-360/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice v NE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325 TFEU — Combating fraud and other illegal activities — Convention on the protection of the Union’s financial interests — Concept of ‘fraud’ — Unlawful conduct during a project’s sustainability phase)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU Member State, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, eligibility criteria, fraud against the EU, offence, penalty








C_2021502EN.01000902.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/9






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice v NE
(Case C-360/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325 TFEU - Combating fraud and other illegal activities - Convention on the protection of the Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘fraud’ - Unlawful conduct during a project’s sustainability phase)
(2021/C 502/13)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeş

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

Defendant: NE

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of ‘fraud affecting the European [Union’s] financial interests’ referred to in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, must be interpreted as including the use of false or incorrect statements submitted following the execution of the funded project in order to give a semblance of compliance with the obligations laid down during the project’s sustainability phase.










2.


The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court to interpret provisions of national law consistently with the obligations arising from Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, read in the light of Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, provided such an interpretation does not entail a breach of the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Case C-662/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — NRW. Bank v Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Late submission — Challengeable act — Confirmatory act)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU)








C_2021502EN.01000401.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/4






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — NRW. Bank v Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-662/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Late submission - Challengeable act - Confirmatory act)
(2021/C 502/05)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: NRW. Bank (represented by: J. Seitz, J. Witte and D. Flore, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: H. Ehlers, J. Kerlin and P. A. Messina, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, Rechtsanwälte), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kalėda and M. J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: D. Triantafyllou, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2019, NRW. Bank v SRB (T-466/16, not published, EU:T:2019:445);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-19/21: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Online sales — Decision to open an investigation — Territorial scope of the investigation — Exclusion of Italy — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic commerce








C_2021502EN.01003001.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/30






Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission
(Case T-19/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Online sales - Decision to open an investigation - Territorial scope of the investigation - Exclusion of Italy - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 502/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Amazon.com, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Amazon EU Sàrl (Luxembourg), Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Komninos and G. Tantulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, T. Franchoo, G. Meessen and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 7692 final of 10 November 2020 initiating proceedings under Article 102 TFEU in Case AT.40703 Amazon — Buy Box.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Italian Republic, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Competition and Market Authority, Italy), the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Computer & Communications Industry Association.










3.


Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl and Amazon Europe Core Sàrl shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The Italian Republic, the Competition and Market Authority, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Computer & Communications Industry Association shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.
Case T-100/20: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (Action for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Member of the Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Request for privileges and immunities to be defended — Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, admissibility, parliamentary immunity








C_2021502EN.01002801.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/28






Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament
(Case T-100/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Request for privileges and immunities to be defended - Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 502/43)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 10 December 2019 not to grant the request, made on behalf of the applicant, for his immunities, as referred to in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, to be defended.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain.










3.


Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.










4.


The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.
Case C-631/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2021 — Taxi Horn Tours BV v Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: entrepreneur, joint venture, partnership, public procurement








C_2022024EN.01001801.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2021 — Taxi Horn Tours BV v Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF
(Case C-631/21)
(2022/C 24/24)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Taxi Horn Tours BV

Respondents: Gemeente Weert, Gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

Questions referred







1.


If collaborating persons (natural persons and/or legal persons) operate a joint undertaking (in this case in the form of a general partnership):






—


must each of the collaborating persons then submit a separate European Single Procurement Document; or










—


must each of the collaborating persons and their joint undertaking then submit a separate European Single Procurement Document; or










—


does only the joint undertaking need to submit one European Single Procurement Document?














2.


Does it make a difference in this regard:






—


whether the joint undertaking is temporary or not temporary (enduring);










—


that the collaborating persons are themselves economic operators;










—


that the collaborating persons operate their own undertakings which are similar to the joint undertaking, or at least are active in the same market;










—


that the joint undertaking is not a legal person;










—


that the joint undertaking may have (recoverable) assets that are separate (from the assets of the partners);










—


whether the joint undertaking has the authority under national law to represent the collaborating persons in answering the questions of the European Single Procurement Document;










—


that under national law, in the case of a general partnership, it is the partners who assume the obligations arising from the contract and are jointly and severally liable for fulfilling them (and not therefore the general partnership itself)?














3.


If several of the factors mentioned under 2 are significant, how do they relate to each other? Are certain factors more significant than other factors or even of decisive significance?










4.


Is it correct that, in the case of a joint undertaking, a separate European Single Procurement Document is in any event required from a collaborating person if the execution of the contract will (also) involve the use of resources that belong to that person’s own undertaking (such as staff and business assets)?










5.


Does the joint undertaking have to meet certain requirements in order to be considered a single economic operator? If so, what are those requirements?
Case C-583/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 3 of Annex IX — Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings — Article 4(4) — Administrative enquiry — Hearing of the official concerned — Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021502EN.01000302.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission
(Case C-583/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 3 of Annex IX - Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings - Article 4(4) - Administrative enquiry - Hearing of the official concerned - Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard)
(2021/C 502/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Case C-186/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Article 96 — Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 — Point from which time starts to run — Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable — Date on which the course of action in question ceased — Repeated acts — Continuous acts — Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, limitation of legal proceedings, plant variety right








C_2021502EN.01000201.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/2






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas
(Case C-186/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 96 - Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 - Point from which time starts to run - Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable - Date on which the course of action in question ceased - Repeated acts - Continuous acts - Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)
(2021/C 502/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: José Cánovas Pardo SL

Defendant: Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 96 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the ongoing nature of an act of infringement of a protected variety or of the date on which that act ended, the three-year period of prescription set out in that provision in respect of claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation starts to run from the date on which, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder of the right had knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable;










2.


Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation in respect of a set of acts of infringement of a protected variety brought after more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the right holder had knowledge of each individual act forming part of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them.






(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.