do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10678 – AIP / MACQUARIE / ABERDEEN / ONIVIA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 167/01
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment bank, investment company, merger control, provision of services, supply, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_2022167EN.01000101.xml










21.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10678 – AIP / MACQUARIE / ABERDEEN / ONIVIA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 167/01)
On 7 April 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 32022M10678. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-133/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Efeteio Athinon — Greece) — VP, CX, RG, TR and Others v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social Policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — National legislation establishing a difference in treatment as regards remuneration between workers employed under fixed-term contracts for the supply of services and those employed under contracts of indefinite duration — No justification — Concept of ‘objective reasons’)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, equal treatment, framework agreement, full-time employment, labour law, public sector, remuneration of work, temporary employment, work contract








C_2022359EN.01001401.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/14






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Efeteio Athinon — Greece) — VP, CX, RG, TR and Others v Elliniko Dimosio
(Case C-133/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social Policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - National legislation establishing a difference in treatment as regards remuneration between workers employed under fixed-term contracts for the supply of services and those employed under contracts of indefinite duration - No justification - Concept of ‘objective reasons’)
(2022/C 359/17)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Efeteio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: VP, CX, RG, TR and Others

Respondent: Elliniko Dimosio

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) 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 as precluding national legislation under which a fixed-term worker, whose contracts is classified as a contract for the supply of services, is not entitled to receive remuneration equivalent to that paid to a permanent worker on the ground that that worker carried out his or her work under a fixed-term contract in the knowledge that that contract sought to meet permanent and long-lasting needs of his or her employer.


(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Case C-150/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on D.B. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Mutual recognition — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Enforcement of financial penalties — Article 1(a)(ii) — Decision imposing a financial penalty issued by an administrative authority — Decision open to appeal to a public prosecutor, subject to instructions from the Minister for Justice — Subsequent appeal before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, fine, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial review, public prosecutor's department








C_2022213EN.01001601.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/16






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on D.B.
(Case C-150/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Enforcement of financial penalties - Article 1(a)(ii) - Decision imposing a financial penalty issued by an administrative authority - Decision open to appeal to a public prosecutor, subject to instructions from the Minister for Justice - Subsequent appeal before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters)
(2022/C 213/19)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: D.B.

Intervening party: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(a)(ii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a final decision requiring a financial penalty to be paid by a natural person, adopted by an authority of the issuing Member State other than a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing Member State, constitutes a ‘decision’, within the meaning of that provision, where the legislation of that Member State provides that an appeal against that decision is to be examined first by a public prosecutor placed under the hierarchical authority of the Minister for Justice and subsequently, if that public prosecutor adopts a decision dismissing that appeal, a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters may be seised by the person concerned, provided that access to that court is not made subject to conditions which make it impossible or excessively difficult.


(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Case C-645/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — V A, Z A v TP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 10 — Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession — Deceased person habitually resident at the time of his or her death in a State that is not bound by Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Deceased person who is a national of a Member State and has assets in that Member State — Obligation for the court of that Member State seised to examine of its own motion the criteria as regards its subsidiary jurisdiction — Appointment of an administrator of the estate)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, law of succession, residence








C_2022213EN.01001401.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/14






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — V A, Z A v TP
(Case C-645/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 10 - Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession - Deceased person habitually resident at the time of his or her death in a State that is not bound by Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Deceased person who is a national of a Member State and has assets in that Member State - Obligation for the court of that Member State seised to examine of its own motion the criteria as regards its subsidiary jurisdiction - Appointment of an administrator of the estate)
(2022/C 213/16)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants in the appeal on a point of law: V A, Z A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State must raise of its own motion its jurisdiction under the rule of subsidiary jurisdiction referred to in that provision where, having been seised on the basis of the rule of general jurisdiction established in Article 4 of that regulation, it finds that it has no jurisdiction under that latter provision.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.