do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-510/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Environment — Directive 2008/56/EC — Marine environmental policy — Article 5 — Marine strategies — Article 17(2) and (3) — Failure to review, within the time limits, the initial assessment, the determination of good environmental status and the environmental targets — Failure to send to the European Commission, within the time limts, details of any updates made following the reviews)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, national implementing measure, prevention of pollution








C_2022237EN.01000901.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/9






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-510/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Environment - Directive 2008/56/EC - Marine environmental policy - Article 5 - Marine strategies - Article 17(2) and (3) - Failure to review, within the time limits, the initial assessment, the determination of good environmental status and the environmental targets - Failure to send to the European Commission, within the time limts, details of any updates made following the reviews)
(2022/C 237/10)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Mitova, L. Zaharieva and T. Tsingileva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed time limits, first, to review in a coordinated manner, as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), the initial assessment and the determination of good environmental status, and, secondly, to send to the European Commission details of the updates made following those reviews, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2)(a) and (b) and Article 17(3) of that directive.










2.


Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-559/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v FU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Concepts of ‘legal costs’ and ‘other expenses’ — Warning notice in order to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights out of court — Lawyers’ fees — Classification — National provision limiting the amount of those costs recoverable under certain conditions)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, intellectual property, lawyer, legal expenses








C_2022237EN.01001001.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v FU
(Case C-559/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 14 - Concepts of ‘legal costs’ and ‘other expenses’ - Warning notice in order to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights out of court - Lawyers’ fees - Classification - National provision limiting the amount of those costs recoverable under certain conditions)
(2022/C 237/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Koch Media GmbH

Defendant: FU

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is to be interpreted as meaning that the expenses incurred by a holder of intellectual property rights in respect of his or her representation by a lawyer in order to ensure that those rights are enforced out of court, such as the costs of giving warning notice, are covered by the concept of ‘other expenses’ within the meaning of that provision.










2.


Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which provides that, in a situation where the infringement of an intellectual property right has been committed by a natural person outside his or her trade or profession, the reimbursement of ‘other expenses’ referred to in that provision, which the rightholder may claim, is calculated on a flat-rate basis of the value in dispute limited by that provision, unless the national court considers that, in view of the specific characteristics of the case before it, the application of such a limitation is unfair.






(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case C-638/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska v CI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope — Legal relationship between a national radio broadcaster and a natural person who is subject to the radio fee — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, consumer protection, quasi-fiscal charge, unfair terms of contract








C_2022244EN.01001001.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/10






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska v CI
(Case C-638/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Legal relationship between a national radio broadcaster and a natural person who is subject to the radio fee - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2022/C 244/12)
Language of the case: Slovak.

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska

Defendant: CI

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Okresný súd Prešov (District Court, Prešov, Slovakia), by decision of 8 September 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  Lodged on: 19.10.2021.
Case C-642/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement — Article 63 — Reliance by a group of economic operators on the capacities of other entities — Possibility for the contracting authority to require that certain critical tasks be performed by a participant of that group — National legislation stipulating that the undertaking representing that group must satisfy the majority of the criteria and perform the majority of the services)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2022237EN.01001201.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/12






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others
(Case C-642/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Public procurement - Article 63 - Reliance by a group of economic operators on the capacities of other entities - Possibility for the contracting authority to require that certain critical tasks be performed by a participant of that group - National legislation stipulating that the undertaking representing that group must satisfy the majority of the criteria and perform the majority of the services)
(2022/C 237/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caruter s.r.l.

Defendants: S.R.R. Messina Provincia SCpA, Comune di Basicò, Comune di Falcone, Comune di Fondachelli Fantina, Comune di Gioiosa Marea, Comune di Librizzi, Comune di Mazzarrà Sant’Andrea, Comune di Montagnareale, Comune di Oliveri, Comune di Piraino, Comune di San Piero Patti, Comune di Sant’Angelo di Brolo, Regione Siciliana — Urega — Ufficio regionale espletamento gare d’appalti lavori pubblici Messina, Regione Siciliana — Assessorato regionale delle infrastrutture e della mobilità

Interveners: Ditta individuale Pippo Pizzo, Onofaro Antonino Srl, Gial Plast Srl, Colombo Biagio Srl,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an undertaking representing a group of economic operators participating in a public procurement procedure must satisfy the majority of the criteria laid down in the contract notice and perform the majority of the services specified in that contract.


(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Case C-86/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Equal treatment — National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression — Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration — Barrier)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, equal treatment, free movement of workers, health care profession, professional career, professional experience, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2022237EN.01001501.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/15






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia
(Case C-86/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Equal treatment - National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression - Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration - Barrier)
(2022/C 237/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León

Defendant: Delia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the recognition of career progression within the health service of a Member State which prevents his or her professional experience gained within a public health service of another Member State from being taken into account for the purposes of calculating length of service, unless the restriction on freedom of movement for workers included in that legislation serves to fulfil an objective in the general interest, makes it possible to ensure the attainment of that objective, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.


(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.
Case C-286/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for micro particles (PM10) in certain zones in France — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ — Appropriate measures)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ile-de-France, Martinique, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, infringement of EU law








C_2022237EN.01001901.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/19






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-286/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for micro particles (PM10) in certain zones in France - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)
(2022/C 237/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stéhelin and W. Zemamta, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the French Republic, by not having ensured that the daily limit value applicable to concentrations of microparticles (PM10) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2005 to 2019 inclusive, in the Paris agglomeration and quality zone (FR04A01/FR11ZAG01) and, from 1 January 2005 to 2016 inclusive, with the exception of 2008, in the Martinique/Fort-de-France agglomeration and quality zone (FR39N10/FR02ZAR01), 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, read in conjunction with Annex XI of that directive, and
by not having ensured that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period of that limit value could be kept as short as possible in those two zones, from 11 June 2010, failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Annex XV of that directive;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Case C-44/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 9(1) — European patent — Interim measures — Power of national judicial authorities to issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right — National case-law dismissing applications for interim measures where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, injunction, patent law








C_2022237EN.01001401.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/14






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-44/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 9(1) - European patent - Interim measures - Power of national judicial authorities to issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right - National case-law dismissing applications for interim measures where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)
(2022/C 237/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national case-law under which applications for interim relief for patent infringement must, in principle, be dismissed where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case C-89/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food law — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs — Article 1 — Annex I — Fresh poultry meat — Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex — Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 14(8) — Discretion of the national authorities — Scope)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: food contamination, food inspection, food safety, food-borne disease, fresh meat, poultrymeat








C_2022237EN.01001601.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/16






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba
(Case C-89/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 1 - Annex I - Fresh poultry meat - Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex - Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Discretion of the national authorities - Scope)
(2022/C 237/20)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Romega’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, read in conjunction with Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of a Member State may regard as unsafe within the meaning of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 the food category consisting in fresh poultry meat in which pathogenic microorganisms other than the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 have been detected.


(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 February 2022 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.)) 2022/C 174/04
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2022174EN.01001801.xml










28.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/18






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 February 2022


(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1))

(2022/C 174/04)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.2.2022 –


2,12 


-0,57 


0,78 






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.