do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-164/22: Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, general legal principle, indemnification, principle of proportionality








C_2022213EN.01004201.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/42






Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-164/22)
(2022/C 213/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 21 December 2021 on State aid SA.63402 (2021/N) — Portugal — COVID-19: Damage compensation to TAP II; and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation despite the existence of ‘serious difficulties’ and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10665 – WAVERLY / TPG / ASIA HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 160/04
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: India, artificial reproduction, economic concentration, fertility, health care, investment company, medical institution, merger control, motherhood








C_2022160EN.01001101.xml










13.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/11






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10665 – WAVERLY / TPG / ASIA HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 160/04)
On 25 March 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 32022M10665. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-220/22: Action brought on 25 March 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, atmospheric pollutant, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, nitrogen, pollution control, prevention of pollution, regions of Portugal








C_2022257EN.01002301.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/23






Action brought on 25 March 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-220/22)
(2022/C 257/30)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


Declare that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value of NO2, from 1 January 20202 onwards, in the zones PT-3001 Lisboa Norte, PT-1004 Porto Litoral and PT-1009 Entre Douro e Minho (previously PT-1001 Braga), Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto;










—


Declare that Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, individually and read in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV to that directive, in relation to all of those zones, and in particular its obligation, under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1), to take appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible;










—


order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The data submitted by Portugal show that that Member State has, since 1 January 2010, been in breach of its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto, in which reference is made to the zones Porto Litoral (PT-1004), Entre Douro e Minho (PT-1009) and Lisboa Norte (PT-3001).
Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have failed to adopt or implement all appropriate measures required to ensure that the exceedance period, in the zones Lisboa Norte (PT-3001), Porto Litoral (PT-1004) and Entre Douro e Minho (PT-1009), in respect of the annual limit value of NO2 laid down in Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto, was kept as short as possible in accordance with the requirements under Article 23(1) of that directive.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1
Commission Decision (EU) 2022/494 of 25 March 2022 confirming the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/693 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Justice Programme
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Ireland, access to the courts, democracy, fundamental rights, human rights, independence of the judiciary, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, rule of law








L_2022100EN.01005901.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 100/59








            COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2022/494
of 25 March 2022
         
confirming the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/693 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Justice Programme


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 4 thereof,


Having regard to the notification by Ireland of its wish to accept and be bound by Regulation (EU) 2021/693 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Justice Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 (1),

Whereas:







(1)


By letter of 22 November 2021 Ireland notified its wish to accept and be bound by Regulation (EU) 2021/693.












(2)


There are no conditions attached to the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/693.












(3)


In accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/693 should therefore be confirmed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The participation of the Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/693 is confirmed.


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, 25 March 2022.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 156, 5.5.2021, p. 21.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10583 – CPP INVESTMENTS / VOTORANTIM / JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 134/13
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, electrical energy, fruit juice, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry, mining industry, special chemicals








C_2022134EN.01003801.xml










25.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/38






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10583 – CPP INVESTMENTS / VOTORANTIM / JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 134/13)

1.   
On 17 March 2022, 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:






—


CPP Investments (Canada),










—


Votorantim S.A. (‘Votorantim’, Brazil),










—


the Joint Venture (‘JV’, Brazil).




CPP Investments and Votorantim will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the newly-created JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


CPP Investments is an investment management organisation that invests the funds of the Canada Pension Plan Fund,










—


Votorantim is active in a variety of business segments, including cement and concrete, mining and metallurgy, concentrated orange juice, chemical specialty markets, electric power generation and financial sector.






3.   

The JV will invest in and/or develop (a) renewable greenfield projects and (b) new renewable energy opportunities, and will be active exclusively in Brazil.



4.   
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 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.


5.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10583 – CPP INVESTMENTS / VOTORANTIM / JV
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.
Corrigendum to Notice of open competition – EPSO/AST/151/22 – Assistants (AST 4) in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the following fields: 1. ICT infrastructures, cloud, networks and middleware, 2. Digital workplace, office automation and mobile computing, 3. Development/configuration, testing, operation and maintenance of IT applications and off-the-shelf solutions; data management, data analytics and artificial intelligence, 4. ICT security (Official Journal of the European Union C 76 A of 17 February 2022) 2022/C 134/15
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: assistant, competition (EU), information technology, information technology profession, job vacancy, recruitment








C_2022134EN.01004901.xml










25.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/49






Corrigendum to Notice of open competition – EPSO/AST/151/22 – Assistants (AST 4) in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the following fields: 1. ICT infrastructures, cloud, networks and middleware, 2. Digital workplace, office automation and mobile computing, 3. Development/configuration, testing, operation and maintenance of IT applications and off-the-shelf solutions; data management, data analytics and artificial intelligence, 4. ICT security

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 76 A of 17 February 2022
)

(2022/C 134/15)
On page 43, Annex II ‘General rules governing open competitions’, point 1.1(b), last dash:
for:






‘—


part-time work: calculated pro rata on the basis of the number of hours worked, e.g. half-time for 6 months would count as 6 months.’,




read:






‘—


part-time work: calculated pro rata on the basis of the number of hours worked, e.g. half-time for 6 months would count as 3 months.’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10378 – VUB / SLOVENSKA SPORITELNA / TATRA BANKA / 365.BANK / CSOB / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 134/08
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Slovakia, banking, cash-in-transit, commercial bank, economic concentration, handling, merger control, money, provision of services








C_2022134EN.01002901.xml










25.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/29






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10378 – VUB / SLOVENSKA SPORITELNA / TATRA BANKA / 365.BANK / CSOB / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 134/08)

1.   
On 17 March 2022, 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:






—


Všeobecná úverová banka, a.s. (‘VUB’, Slovakia), controlled by Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. (Italy),










—


Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s. (‘Slovenska Sporitelna’, Slovakia), controlled by Erste Group Bank AG (Austria),










—


Tatra banka, a.s. (‘Tatra Banka’, Slovakia), controlled by Raiffeisen Bank International AG (Austria),










—


365.bank, a.s. (‘365.bank’, Slovakia; before 3 July 2021 registered as Poštová banka, a.s.), controlled by J&T FINANCE GROUP SE (Czechia),










—


Československá obchodná banka, a.s. (‘CSOB’, Slovakia), controlled by KBC Group N.V. (Belgium).




VUB, Slovenska Sporitelna, Tatra Banka, 365.bank and CSOB will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


VUB, Slovenska Sporitelna, Tatra Banka, 365.bank and CSOB are commercial banks in Slovakia active in retail and corporate banking,










—


The JV will provide cash handling, cash in transit and cash management services.






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.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10378 – VUB / SLOVENSKA SPORITELNA / TATRA BANKA / 365.BANK / CSOB / JV
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’).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 March 2022 2022/C 134/02
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022134EN.01001101.xml










25.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/11






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 March 2022
(2022/C 134/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0978 




JPY


Japanese yen


133,71 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4397 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83288 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3555 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0225 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4923 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,720 




HUF


Hungarian forint


374,44 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7421 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9489 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,2917 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4668 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3806 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5897 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5812 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4912 




KRW


South Korean won


1 342,53 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1478 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9933 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5745 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 778,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6396 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,426 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,837 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3057 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1770 




INR


Indian rupee


83,8790 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-160/22: Action brought on 25 March 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, consultancy, cultural event, hotel industry, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2022207EN.01004701.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/47






Action brought on 25 March 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)
(Case T-160/22)
(2022/C 207/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark bâoli BEACH — EU trade mark No 16 552 333

Proceedings before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2022 in Case R 223/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare EU trade mark No 16 552 333 bâoli BEACH invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001;










—


declare trade mark No 16 552 333 invalid as of the date of its filing;










—


order Peace United to reimburse the fees and costs incurred by 1906 Collins in connection with the present proceedings, including the costs awarded by the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, in accordance with Article 134(1) and Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-161/22: Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ortega Montero v Parliament
Date: 2022-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EP Committee, European civil service, advisory committee (EU), rules of procedure, vote








C_2022198EN.01006202.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/62






Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ortega Montero v Parliament
(Case T-161/22)
(2022/C 198/90)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of 20 May 2021, in so far as it rejects the requests contained in the letter of the applicant’s counsel of 19 January 2021 seeking the annulment of the amendment of the Staff Committee’s Rules of Procedure adopted on 10 November 2020, as well as the votes cast and decisions taken on the basis of that new version of the rules;










—


annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 21 December 2021 in so far as it rejects the complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 August 2021 against the decision rejecting her requests made by letter of 19 January 2021;










—


annul the new provisions of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and in particular the amendment of Article 22 adopted on 10 November 2020;










—


annul the vote by written procedure carried out in application of the new Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and all decisions resulting therefrom, including the result of the last elections;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the amendment to the Rules of Procedure 2020 and its adoption on the morning of 10 November 2020 were unlawful, on the ground, first, that that amendment goes against the ratio legis of Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure and the democratic principles protected therein, secondly, that Article 22 itself was not complied with when it was adopted and implemented and, thirdly, that the texts adopted lack legal clarity.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness (ratione temporis) of the votes cast on 10 November 2020 on the basis of the new Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure, before its entry into force.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the unlawfullness of the adoption of the written procedure applicable to the votes of the advisory and interinstitutional committees and delegations implemented in the afternoon of 10 November 2020.