do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement 2022/C 103/10
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, aid to undertakings, bank, control of State aid, financial services








C_2022103EN.01001301.xml










3.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/13






No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2022/C 103/10)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:






Date of adoption of the decision


17 November 2021




Case No


83768




Decision No


257/21/COL




EFTA State


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Alleged aid to Landsbankinn and Íslandsbanki




Legal basis


Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement




Type of measure


No aid




Economic sectors


Financial services




Name and address of the granting authority


The Icelandic State Financial Investments (ISFI)




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/
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 103/04
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Lombardy, Sardinia, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2022103EN.01000701.xml










3.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/7






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 103/04)






Member State


Italy




Route concerned


Alghero-Milan Linate and vice-versa




Period of validity of the contract


A period of two years starting on 1 October 2022




Deadline for submission of tenders


62 days after the date of publication of this notice




Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained


For further information:
Autonomous Region of Sardinia
Department of Transport
Directorate-General for Transport





Unit for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity




Via XXIX Novembre 1847, n. 41




09123 Cagliari




ITALY




Tel. +39 0706067331
Fax +39 0706067309
Internet: http://www.regione.sardegna.it
Email: trasporti@pec.regione.sardegna.it
trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it.
Case T-46/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 3 March 2022 — Esedra v Parliament (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Early childhood care services — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, European Parliament, award of contract, child care, damages, nursery school, services contract, tendering








C_2022171EN.01004002.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/40






Order of the President of the General Court of 3 March 2022 — Esedra v Parliament
(Case T-46/22 R)
(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Early childhood care services - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)
(2022/C 171/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Esedra SRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Vastmans, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Pencheva and M. Kazek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for, first, a suspension of operation of the decision of the Parliament of 26 November 2021 to award the public service contract for the ‘Full management of the early childhood care facility of the European Parliament at Rue Wayenberg in Brussels’ to another tenderer and to reject the applicant’s tender and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to take the measures necessary to suspend the effects of the award decision or of the contract entered into following that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-162/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 60, first paragraph — Unauthorised absence — Scope — Deduction from annual leave — Withholding of salary — Official who has failed to fulfil his or her obligations under Articles 21 and 55 of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, absenteeism, deduction at source, leave on social grounds, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022171EN.01000401.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/4






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS)
(Case C-162/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 60, first paragraph - Unauthorised absence - Scope - Deduction from annual leave - Withholding of salary - Official who has failed to fulfil his or her obligations under Articles 21 and 55 of the Staff Regulations)
(2022/C 171/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, and F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 29 January 2020, WV v EEAS (T-471/18, not published, EU:T:2020:26);











2.


Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 27 November 2017 to impose a deduction from salary amounting to 72 calendar days and the decision of the EEAS of 2 May 2018 rejecting the appellant’s complaint lodged on 3 January 2018;










3.


Orders the EEAS to repay to the appellant the amounts wrongly deducted from her remuneration, amounting to 71,5 days, together with interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date on which they were deducted;










4.


Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by WV at first instance and in the present appeal.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Case C-160/22 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-795/19, HB v European Commission
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arbitration clause, award of contract, claim, damages, interest, reduced price, reimbursement of aid, services contract








C_2022244EN.01001401.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/14






Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-795/19, HB v European Commission
(Case C-160/22 P)
(2022/C 244/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Araujo Arce, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 21 December 2021 (T-795/19), in so far as it dismisses as inadmissible the action for annulment against Commission Decision C(2019) 7319 final of 15 October 2019 (point 1 of the operative part), and orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings (point 3 of the operative part);










—


Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance;










—


Order HB to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal.
The first ground of appeal alleges an error of legal characterisation, in that the General Court overlooked and rendered ineffective the provisions of the Decision adopted by the Commission in the exercise of its public powers within a contractual framework, by characterising those measures as contractual and subject to adjudication by the courts with jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes. That incorrect legal characterisation concerns paragraphs 67 to 90 of the judgment under appeal.
The second ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision (paragraphs 67 to 78 of the judgment) and a distortion of the facts. In its characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision, which establishes HB’s liability for an irregularity in the contract award procedure, the General Court distorted the facts and incorrectly characterised Article 1 as contractual in nature.
The third ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision (paragraphs 79 to 86 of the judgment). In applying the reduction of the price of the contract to EUR 0 and recovering the amounts already paid, the Commission did not act within a contractual framework, but exercised its public powers. The General Court erred in treating those provisions in the same way as if they were the consequences of a contractual annulment on grounds of fraud or vitiated consent.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 103/08
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Lombardy, Sardinia, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2022103EN.01001101.xml










3.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/11






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 103/08)






Member State


Italy




Route concerned


Olbia-Milan Linate and vice-versa




Period of validity of the contract


A period of two years starting on 1 October 2022




Deadline for submission of tenders


62 days after the date of publication of this notice




Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained


For further information:





Autonomous Region of Sardinia




Department of Transport




Directorate-General for Transport




Unit for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity




Via XXIX Novembre 1847, n. 41




09123 Cagliari




ITALY




Tel. +39 0706067331
Fax +39 0706067309
Internet: http://www.regione.sardegna.it
Email: trasporti@pec.regione.sardegna.it
trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it.
Case C-171/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS) (Appeal — Civil Service — Request for assistance — Claim for damages — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 — Article 90(1) and (2) — Review of an administrative measure which has become final)
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, administrative measure, indemnification, judicial review, legal aid, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022171EN.01000501.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS)
(Case C-171/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Request for assistance - Claim for damages - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 - Article 90(1) and (2) - Review of an administrative measure which has become final)
(2022/C 171/05)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, and F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders WV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 March 2022 2022/C 103/02
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022103EN.01000501.xml










3.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

2 March 2022
(2022/C 103/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1106 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,08 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4387 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83316 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7880 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0216 




ISK


Iceland króna


143,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8826 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,866 




HUF


Hungarian forint


382,31 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,8021 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9493 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,6280 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5272 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4088 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6785 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6404 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5059 




KRW


South Korean won


1 338,99 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1904 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0153 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5740 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 980,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6595 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,206 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,339 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,7313 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9990 




INR


Indian rupee


84,1765 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-116/22: Action brought on 3 March 2022 — Belavia v Council
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2022171EN.01004202.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/42






Action brought on 3 March 2022 — Belavia v Council
(Case T-116/22)
(2022/C 171/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Belavia — Belarusian Airlines AAT (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and










—


order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs for this action.





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 that by relying on the factually incorrect reasons provided in the Contested Measures to designate the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment. This is strengthened by the fact that the applicant in fact itself provided the Council with detailed information rebutting the reasons underlying its designation prior thereto, as it became aware of false news reports containing such information being published.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure.






(1)  OJ L 430 I, p. 16.


(2)  OJ L 430 I, p. 1.
Case C-162/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2022 — A.G. v Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corruption, data protection, data-processing law, fight against crime, personal data, protection of communications, public authorities, threat to national security








C_2022237EN.01002801.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2022 — A.G. v Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

(Case C-162/22)
(2022/C 237/37)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A.G.

Other party: Lietuvos Respublikos generalinė prokuratūra

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as prohibiting the competent public authorities from using data retained by providers of electronic communications services which may provide information on the data of, and communications made by, a user of a means of electronic communications, in investigations into corruption-related misconduct in office, irrespective of whether access to those data has been granted, in the particular case, for the purposes of combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37.
Case C-161/22 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-796/19, HB v European Commission
Date: 2022-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arbitration clause, award of contract, damages, interest, reduced price, reimbursement of aid, services contract








C_2022244EN.01001501.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/15






Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-796/19, HB v European Commission
(Case C-161/22 P)
(2022/C 244/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Araujo Arce, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 21 December 2021 (T-796/19), in so far as it dismisses as inadmissible the action for annulment against Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 (point 1 of the operative part), and orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings (point 3 of the operative part);










—


Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance;










—


Order HB to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal.
The first ground of appeal alleges an error of legal characterisation, in that the General Court overlooked and rendered ineffective the provisions of the Decision adopted by the Commission using its public powers within a contractual framework, by characterising those measures as contractual and subject to adjudication by the courts with jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes. That incorrect legal characterisation concerns paragraphs 62 to 87 of the judgment under appeal.
The second ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision (paragraphs 62 to 73 of the judgment) and a distortion of the facts. In its characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision, which establishes HB’s liability for an irregularity in the contract award procedure, the General Court distorted the facts and incorrectly characterised Article 1 as contractual in nature.
The third ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision (paragraphs 74 to 83 of the judgment). In applying the reduction of the price of the contract to EUR 0 and recovering the amounts already paid, the Commission did not act within a contractual framework, but exercised its public powers. The General Court erred in treating those provisions in the same way as if they were the consequences of a contractual annulment on grounds of fraud or vitiated consent.