do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-265/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — JR v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the oral test in a competition — Partial refusal of access — Method for rounding scores — Weightings assigned to the different parts and sub-parts of the oral test — Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings — Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 — No need to adjudicate in part)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrator, competition (EU), disclosure of information, professional qualifications








C_2022051EN.01002701.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/27






Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — JR v Commission
(Case T-265/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the oral test in a competition - Partial refusal of access - Method for rounding scores - Weightings assigned to the different parts and sub-parts of the oral test - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - No need to adjudicate in part)
(2022/C 51/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, C. Ehrbar and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 28 February 2020 and 9 April 2020 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by the applicant seeking annulment of the European Commission’s decisions of 28 February 2020 and 9 April 2020 in so far as they refused the applicant access to the method for rounding scores used by the selection board in the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators;










2.


Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 April 2020 in so far as it refuses access to a document containing the weightings assigned to the two parts of the oral test (interview and structured presentation) specified in the notice for the internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD 6) — 1 — Administrators, and the two sub-parts of the interview (professional experience and motivation) which were also specified in the notice for that competition;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case C-730/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2021 by Collibra against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2021 in Cases T-128/20 and T-129/20, Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (COLLIBRA and collibra)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, business data processing, computer equipment, computer system, consultancy, data processing, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022222EN.01000901.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/9






Appeal brought on 1 December 2021 by Collibra against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2021 in Cases T-128/20 and T-129/20, Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (COLLIBRA and collibra)
(Case C-730/21 P)
(2022/C 222/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Collibra (represented by: A. Renck and A. Bothe, Rechtsanwälte, and by I. Junkar, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hans Dietrich
By order of 23 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Collibra should bear its own costs.
Case T-293/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Admission criterion related to professional experience — Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), professional experience, professional qualifications








C_2022051EN.01002801.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/28






Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission
(Case T-293/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Admission criterion related to professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice - Manifest error of assessment)
(2022/C 51/38)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 7 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment


The Court:







1.


Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the request for review of Ms Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Case C-729/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 1 December 2021 — W. Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, branch, supply, transfer of businesses








C_2022128EN.01000601.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 1 December 2021 — W. Sp. z o. o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi
(Case C-729/21)
(2022/C 128/08)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: W. Sp. z o. o.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of EU law concerning VAT be interpreted as allowing the application of a provision of national law — such as Article 6(1) of the ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dz. U. of 2021, item 685; ‘the Law on VAT’) — which excludes taxation of a supply of an organised part of an undertaking without making the application of that exclusion subject to the condition referred to in Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax …, (1) that is to say, legal succession between the seller and the purchaser?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do all the assets of that organised part of the seller’s property have to be transferred for the exclusion referred to in Article 6(1) of the Law on VAT to apply and does a change in this respect (in particular the non-conclusion of agreements concerning the insurance and management of the property being transferred) mean that there has been a taxable supply of goods?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-662/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (triple helicoid cheese) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing triple helicoid cheese — Earlier international design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Disclosure of the earlier design — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Different overall impression — Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cheese, designs and models








C_2022051EN.01002901.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/29






Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (triple helicoid cheese)
(Case T-662/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing triple helicoid cheese - Earlier international design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Different overall impression - Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002)
(2022/C 51/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dimitrova and I. Pakidanska, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 (Case R 1925/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between M. J. Dairies and Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayí ve Tícaret AŞ to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10549 – ARDIAN FRANCE / RG SAFETY) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 483/15
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, protective equipment, wholesale selling








C_2021483EN.01003701.xml










1.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 483/37






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10549 – ARDIAN FRANCE / RG SAFETY)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 483/15)

1.   
On 23 November 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Ardian Expansion Fund V S.L.P., controlled by Ardian France S.A. (‘Ardian France’, France),










—


SAS Financière RG Safety (‘RG Safety’, France).




Ardian France acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of RG Safety.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Ardian France is a private equity firm that manages and advises investment funds with shareholdings in various companies around the world, particularly in Italy and France in the airport infrastructure, conveyor system design and maintenance and aeronautical maintenance sectors;










—


RG Safety is an international group specialising in the distribution of personal protective equipment, safety products and hygiene products for professionals, both under manufacturer brands and under its own brand – it operates in a range of sectors and is present in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Slovakia, Germany, Tunisia and Switzerland.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit to it any observations they may have on the proposed transaction.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10549 – ARDIAN FRANCE / RG SAFETY
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-546/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission (Public service contract — Tender procedure — Services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of IT platforms for DG ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low offer)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, information technology industry, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2022051EN.01002802.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/28






Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission
(Case T-546/20) (1)

(Public service contract - Tender procedure - Services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of IT platforms for DG ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low offer)
(2022/C 51/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Sopra Steria Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium for lot A in the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 2 July 2020 which, first, rejected the joint tender submitted by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium in the context of the tendering procedure bearing reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006 for services for the specification, development, maintenance and support of the third level of the IT platforms of the Directorate General for ‘Taxation and Customs Union’ and, secondly, awarded the contract to the other consortium that submitted a tender in so far as it concerns lot A;










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium.






(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Case T-152/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Filing of a complaint with the Commission concerning the application of EU law — Time limit for reply — Right to good administration — Mandatory due diligence — Reasonable period — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, complaint to the Commission, damages








C_2022051EN.01003102.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/31






Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission
(Case T-152/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Filing of a complaint with the Commission concerning the application of EU law - Time limit for reply - Right to good administration - Mandatory due diligence - Reasonable period - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
(2022/C 51/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM (Nîmes, France) (represented by: O. Coudray, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s negligent failure to deal with her complaint, registered on 27 June 2019 under reference CHAP(2019)01840, for alleged breach of European Union law by the French Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10456 – SKY / VIACOMCBS / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 126/03
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual equipment, audiovisual industry, broadcasting, economic concentration, holding company, joint venture, merger control, television








C_2022126EN.01000601.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10456 – SKY / VIACOMCBS / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 126/03)
On 1 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10456. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-741/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 1 December 2021 — GP v juris GmbH
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, indemnification, personal data








C_2022119EN.01001901.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 1 December 2021 — GP v juris GmbH
(Case C-741/21)
(2022/C 119/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GP

Defendant: juris GmbH

Questions referred







1.


In the light of recital 85 and the third sentence of recital 146 of the GDPR, (1) is the concept of ‘non-material damage’ in Article 82(1) of the GDPR to be understood as covering any impairment of the protected legal position, irrespective of the other effects and materiality of that impairment?










2.


Is liability for compensation under Article 82(3) of the GDPR excluded by the fact that the infringement is attributed to human error in the individual case on the part of a person acting under the authority of the processor or controller within the meaning of Article 29 of the GDPR?










3.


Is it permissible or necessary to base the assessment of compensation for non-material damage on the criteria for determining fines set out in Article 83 of the GDPR, in particular in Article 83(2) and 83(5) of the GDPR?










4.


Must the compensation be determined for each individual infringement, or are several infringements — or at least several infringements of the same nature — penalised by means of an overall amount of compensation, which is not determined by adding up individual amounts but is based on an evaluative overall assessment?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Case T-709/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — OJ v Commission (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — EPSO decision to refuse the extension of the dates of the multiple choice computer-based tests — Application for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2022073EN.01004401.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/44






Order of the President of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — OJ v Commission
(Case T-709/20 R)
(Application for interim measures - Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - EPSO decision to refuse the extension of the dates of the multiple choice computer-based tests - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
(2022/C 73/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: OJ (represented by: H.-E. von Harpe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and L. Hohenecker, agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the selection procedure of Open Competition EPSO/AD/380/19 concerning the establishment for the Commission of a reserve list of administrators in the field of international cooperation and aid to non-member countries.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed;










2.


The costs are reserved.