do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-185/20 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2022 — Hungary v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by Hungary)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2022222EN.01000201.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/2






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2022 — Hungary v European Commission
(Case C-185/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by Hungary)
(2022/C 222/02)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, agents)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Aquilina, agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.










2.


Hungary shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus 2022/C 25 I/01
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








CI2022025EN.01000101.xml










18.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 25/1






Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus
(2022/C 25 I/01)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Dzmitry Valerievich PAULICHENKA (no. 2), Mr. Viktar Uladzimiravich SHEIMAN (no. 3), Mr. Siarhei Mikalaevich KHAMENKA (no. 8), Mr. Aliaksandr Mikhailavich ALIASHKEVICH (no. 16), Mr. Aliaksandr Paulavich VASILIEU (no. 18), Mr. Aleh Mikalaevich SHULIAKOUSKI (no. 19), Mr. Anatol Anatolievich VASILIEU (no. 20), Mr. Aliaksandr Viachaslavavich ASTREIKA (no. 21), Mr. Uladzimir Viktaravich KALACH (no. 30), Mr. Alieg Anatolevich CHARNYSHOU (no. 31), Ms. Lidzia Mihailauna YARMOSHINA (no 33), Mr. Viktar Aliaksandravich LUKASHENKA (no 46), Mr. Raman Ivanavich MELNIK (49), Mr. Andrei Fiodaravich SMAL (53), Aleh Heorhievich KARAZIEI (no 70), Mr. Viktar Ivanavich STANISLAUCHYK (no. 77), Ms. Volha Mikalaeuna CHAMADANAVA (no. 114), Ms. Liliya Valereuna LUKASHENKA (no. 121), Mr. Siarhei Siamionavich TSIATSERYN (no. 124) and Mr. Andrei Siarheevich BAKACH (no. 144), persons appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 765/2006 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation Belarus.
The Council is considering maintaining the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 25 January 2022, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1. Horizontal and Global Affairs




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.
Case T-522/21: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, promotion, protection of privacy, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022237EN.01005502.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/55






Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission
(Case T-522/21)
(2022/C 237/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny-Salwarowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision D/386/20 of 24 November 2020 concerning the refusal to rectify the applicant’s Sysper 2 file, upheld by decision No. R/125/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 16 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 22 February 2021;










—


annul decision of 12 November 2020 (IA no 32-2020) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2020, upheld by decision No. R/80/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021;










—


compensate the loss and damages of the applicant; (1)











—


order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses.





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 an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedures: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C(2013)8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  Two specific amounts of damages are claimed in the application, namely EUR 25 000 for non-material loss and EUR 50 000 in respect of the applicant’s alleged material damage.
Case C-386/21: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ryanair DAC v Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, claim, consumer protection, contract, contract of carriage, contractual liability, damages, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2022222EN.01002502.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/25






Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ryanair DAC v Happy Flights Srl, formerly Happy Flights Sprl
(Case C-386/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/38)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Case C-43/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2022 — Prokurator Generalny
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: court of civil jurisdiction, independence of the judiciary, judge, minister, reassignment, right to justice








C_2022198EN.01002201.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2022 — Prokurator Generalny
(Case C-43/22)
(2022/C 198/32)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Prokurator Generalny

Other parties to the proceedings: D.J., D[X]. J., Ł.J., S.J., Wojewódzkie Pogotowie Ratunkowe w K.

Questions referred







1.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding national rules under which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, on the one hand, second a judge to a higher civil court with jurisdiction over matters of EU law for a fixed or indefinite period, and, on the other hand, terminate the secondment of that judge at any time by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an appeal against a decision of a court which includes a judge seconded in the manner described in the first question is required to examine of its own motion whether that court is independent and impartial even if the case at issue does not involve a matter of EU law?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) and Article 5(1) to (3) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as requiring a court of a Member State to set aside a final court decision whenever it is established that such a seconded judge participated in the examination of the case, and that the court which included the judge in question was not independent and impartial, by means of a legal remedy the purpose of which is to set aside final decisions, such as an extraordinary appeal, or does the determination of the effects of such an infringement come within the procedural autonomy of the Member State?
Case C-261/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 15 — Architects’ and engineers’ fees — Fixed minimum tariffs — Direct effect — Judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations delivered during proceedings before a national court or tribunal)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, direct applicability, engineer, freedom to provide services, infringement of EU law, minimum pay, remuneration of work, town-planning profession








C_2022119EN.01001102.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/11






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN
(Case C-261/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15 - Architects’ and engineers’ fees - Fixed minimum tariffs - Direct effect - Judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations delivered during proceedings before a national court or tribunal)
(2022/C 119/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: MN

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, when hearing a dispute which is exclusively between private individuals, is not required, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply a piece of national legislation which, in breach of Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, sets minimum rates for fees for services provided by architects and engineers and which renders invalid agreements derogating from that legislation, without prejudice, however, to, first, the possibility for that court to disapply that legislation on the basis of domestic law in the context of such a dispute, and, second, the right of a party which has been harmed as a result of national law not being in conformity with EU law to claim compensation for the ensuing loss or damage sustained by that party.


(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10484 – PAI PARTNERS / NEW TIGER)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage








C_202402808EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2808


19.4.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10484 – PAI PARTNERS / NEW TIGER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2808)

On 18 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32022M10484. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2808/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-30/22: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Sanoptis v EUIPO — Synoptis Pharma (SANOPTIS)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, eye disease, health care, medical centre, medical diagnosis, private medical treatment, registered trade mark, surgery, therapeutics, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01005101.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/51






Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Sanoptis v EUIPO — Synoptis Pharma (SANOPTIS)
(Case T-30/22)
(2022/C 119/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sanoptis Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rost, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synoptis Pharma sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SANOPTIS — Application for registration No 17 934 770

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2021 in Case R 850/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;










—


orders the intervener to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-118/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — JY v Wiener Landesregierung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Scope — Renunciation of the nationality of one Member State in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State in accordance with the assurance given by the latter to naturalise the person concerned — Revocation of that assurance on grounds of public policy or public security — Principle of proportionality — Statelessness)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European citizenship, fine, naturalisation, principle of proportionality, public safety, stateless person, traffic offence








C_2022119EN.01000701.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — JY v Wiener Landesregierung
(Case C-118/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Scope - Renunciation of the nationality of one Member State in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State in accordance with the assurance given by the latter to naturalise the person concerned - Revocation of that assurance on grounds of public policy or public security - Principle of proportionality - Statelessness)
(2022/C 119/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JY

Defendant: Wiener Landesregierung

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The situation of a person who, having the nationality of one Member State only, renounces that nationality and loses, as a result, his or her status of citizen of the Union, with a view to obtaining the nationality of another Member State, following the assurance given by the authorities of the latter Member State that he or she will be granted that nationality, falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law where that assurance is revoked with the effect of preventing that person from recovering the status of citizen of the Union.










2.


Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities and, as the case may be, the national courts of the host Member State are required to ascertain whether the decision to revoke the assurance as to the grant of the nationality of that Member State, which makes the loss of the status of citizen of the Union permanent for the person concerned, is compatible with the principle of proportionality in the light of the consequences it entails for that person’s situation. That requirement of compatibility with the principle of proportionality is not satisfied where such a decision is based on administrative traffic offences which, under the applicable provisions of national law, give rise to a mere pecuniary penalty.






(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Case C-40/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by Ramón Baides Fernández and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-659/21, Baides Fernández v Commission
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, framework agreement, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, public sector, temporary employment








C_2022408EN.01002503.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/25






Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by Ramón Baides Fernández and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-659/21, Baides Fernández v Commission
(Case C-40/22 P)
(2022/C 408/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Ramón Baides Fernández, Alberto Baranda Álvarez, José Luis Bermúdez Cuetos, Juan Carlos Campos Menéndez, María Gloria Díaz Blanco, José Vicente Galán Soto, María José González Delgado, María Rosario López Rodríguez, Erundina Prieto Álvarez, Mónica Regueira Álvarez, Patricia Sánchez Caballero (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Case C-38/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by José Antonio Santos Cañibano and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-649/21, Santos Cañibano and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, framework agreement, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, public sector, temporary employment








C_2022408EN.01002501.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/25






Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by José Antonio Santos Cañibano and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-649/21, Santos Cañibano and Others v Commission
(Case C-38/22 P)
(2022/C 408/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: José Antonio Santos Cañibano, Ruth Hompanera Lanzós, Judith Lapresa Isla, José Manuel Arias García, María del Mar Barba Barba, María Isabel Bernárdez Rodríguez, Mónica Camara Torio, Adriana Canella Suárez, Eladio Cano Nieto, Pilar Carbajales García, Luis De Miguel Ribón, Luis Ángel Díaz Suárez, Daniel Fernández González, Cristina Fernández Somoano, Pedro García Parada, Inmaculada Garcia Perez, Susana González González, Pedro Óscar González Menéndez, José Manuel González Riopedre, Carlos Ángel Lazo Reguera, Salvador Llorens García, José Luis Lozano Garrido, Fernando Luiña Vela, Miguel Mera Vega, Abel Miravalles Pindas, Rafael Munguria Rubio, María Montserrat Muñiz Fernández, Aurora Nicolás Herreros, Verónica Pereira Torres, Ernesto Real Arias, Javier Rodríguez Lana, María Belén Rodríguez Menéndez, José Javier Rodríguez Mier, Concepción Rodríguez Rodríguez, María Elena Rodríguez Suárez, Alejandro Sánchez Gión, José Luis Santos Lobato, Susana Solís García, María de los Ángeles Ugido López, María Elvira Vega Fernández, Isabel María Vilalta Suárez, Antonio Villabela Pataño, María José Fernández Gutiérrez, Lourdes Cano Nieto (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.