do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-55/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ — Bar Association Disciplinary Court — Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer — Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation — Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) — Authorisation scheme — Withdrawal of authorisation — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Not applicable)
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, disciplinary proceedings, lawyer, minister, professional society, provision of services, right to justice








C_2022109EN.01000501.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości
(Case C-55/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer - Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation - Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) - Authorisation scheme - Withdrawal of authorisation - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Not applicable)
(2022/C 109/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister Sprawiedliwości

Intervening parties: Prokurator Krajowy — Pierwszy Zastępca Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznik Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not having the effect of rendering Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable to appeal proceedings brought by a State authority before a Bar Association Disciplinary Court and seeking annulment of a decision by which a Disciplinary Agent closed an investigation into a lawyer after finding that there was no disciplinary offence attributable to that lawyer and, should that decision be annulled, to the referral back of the file to that disciplinary agent.


(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-361/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — YG v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Official — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the appellant — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Comparison of the merits — Principle of equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022109EN.01000901.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/9






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — YG v European Commission
(Case C-361/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Official - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the appellant - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Comparison of the merits - Principle of equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)
(2022/C 109/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker, L. Vernier and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders YG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-282/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — YT and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 4 and 5 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Catholic religious education teachers — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of such contracts — Permanent need for replacement staff)
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Catholicism, full-time employment, labour law, public education, teacher, temporary employment, work contract








C_2022109EN.01000301.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — YT and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania
(Case C-282/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 4 and 5 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Catholic religious education teachers - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of such contracts - Permanent need for replacement staff)
(2022/C 109/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: YT, ZU, AW, BY, CX, DZ, EA, FB, GC, IE, JF, KG, LH, MI, NY, PL, HD, OK

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania

Intervener: Federazione GILDA-UNAMS

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted, first, as precluding national legislation excluding Catholic religious education teachers in public education establishments from the scope of the rules intended to penalise abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system penalising that abuse and, second, as meaning that the requirement to hold a suitability certificate issued by an ecclesiastical authority for the purposes of allowing those teachers to provide Catholic religious education does not constitute an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, because that certificate is issued once and not before each school year leading to the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10552 – BROOKFIELD / ACEK / BENJUMEA FAMILY / POWEN) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 27/01
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2022027EN.01000101.xml










19.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10552 – BROOKFIELD / ACEK / BENJUMEA FAMILY / POWEN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 27/01)
On 13 January 2022, 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 32022M10552. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-351/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Liviu Dragnea v European Commission (Appeal — Investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Investigation reports — Request for an investigation to be opened into the conduct of previous OLAF investigations — Request to access documents — Letter of refusal — Article 263 TFEU — Decision against which an action for annulment may be brought — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Action against a letter confirming OLAF’s investigation reports — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 6 and Article 7(2) — Obligation to inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application)
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, access to EU information, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2022109EN.01000802.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/8






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Liviu Dragnea v European Commission
(Case C-351/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Investigation reports - Request for an investigation to be opened into the conduct of previous OLAF investigations - Request to access documents - Letter of refusal - Article 263 TFEU - Decision against which an action for annulment may be brought - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Action against a letter confirming OLAF’s investigation reports - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 6 and Article 7(2) - Obligation to inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application)
(2022/C 109/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Liviu Dragnea (represented by: C. Toby, O. Riffaud and B. Entringer, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2020, Dragnea v Commission, (T-738/18, not published, EU:T:2020:208), to the extent that, by that order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by Mr Liviu Dragnea for annulment of the letter from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2018, in so far as, by that letter, OLAF refused to grant him access to the documents requested in his letter of 22 August 2018;










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on this head of the application for annulment;










3.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










4.


Orders Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission to bear their own costs incurred in the context of the present appeal;










5.


Reserves the costs as to the remainder.






(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Case T-26/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, rights of the defence








C_2022109EN.01003001.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/30






Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission
(Case T-26/22)
(2022/C 109/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


Annul the contested decision;










—


In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it provides for enforcement;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Decision C(2021) 7932 final of the European Commission of 28 October 2021, concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 5 888 214,59, plus interest, owed by the CIMV, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a clear substantive error resulting from the failure to take into account the schedule proposed by the CIMV and failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and failure to have regard for the aim of effective protection of the financial interests of the European Union.
Case C-881/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Approximation of the laws — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII — Provision of food information to consumers — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive 2000/36/EC — Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I — Cocoa and chocolate products — List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State)
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, cocoa, confectionery product, consumer information, labelling, product designation








C_2022109EN.01000402.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství
(Case C-881/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Approximation of the laws - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 2000/36/EC - Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I - Cocoa and chocolate products - List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State)
(2022/C 109/05)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tesco Stores ČR a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator, when labelling products marketed in the territory of a Member State, is exempt from the obligation to list all the ingredients constituting a compound ingredient, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of that regulation, only if that compound ingredient, which is the subject of a sales name under Part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption, is designated in the list of ingredients using that sales name, in the language version of the Member State concerned.


(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2022/C 16/02
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, cultural event, epidemic








C_2022016EN.01000201.xml










13.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/2






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2022/C 16/02)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


27 September 2021




Case No


87382




Decision No


224/21/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 amendments to 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 July to 31 October 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 425 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 July to 31 October 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 July to 31 October 2021




Duration


Until 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 Internet: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case T-380/21: Order of the General Court of 13 January 2022 — Flybe v Commission
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air transport, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence, transport licence








C_2022119EN.01005902.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/59






Order of the General Court of 13 January 2022 — Flybe v Commission
(Case T-380/21) (1)

(2022/C 119/85)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Case C-683/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Major roads and major railways — Article 8(2) — Action plans — Article 10(2) — Annex VI — Summaries of action plans — Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period)
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, noise pollution, noise protection, rail transport, road transport








C_2022109EN.01001102.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/11






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
(Case C-683/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Major roads and major railways - Article 8(2) - Action plans - Article 10(2) - Annex VI - Summaries of action plans - Failure to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period)
(2022/C 109/16)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively;










2.


Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/52 of 13 January 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
Date: 2022-01-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, territorial dispute




L_2022009EN.01004301.xml










14.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 9/43








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2022/52
of 13 January 2022
         
amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1).












(2)


On 19 March 2015, the European Council agreed that the necessary measures would be taken to clearly link the duration of the restrictive measures to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements, bearing in mind that the complete implementation was foreseen for 31 December 2015.












(3)


On 12 July 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1144 (2), renewing Decision 2014/512/CFSP until 31 January 2022 in order to enable it to further assess the implementation of the Minsk agreements.












(4)


Having assessed the implementation of the Minsk agreements, the Council considers that Decision 2014/512/CFSP should be renewed for a further six months in order to enable the Council to further assess their implementation.












(5)


Decision 2014/512/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP is replaced by the following:


‘1.   This Decision shall apply until 31 July 2022.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 13 January 2022.


For the Council


The President

J.-Y. LE DRIAN
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1144 of 12 July 2021 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 247, 13.7.2021, p. 99).