do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-719/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Comune di Lerici v Provincia di La Spezia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Waste management — In-house award — Directive 2014/24/EU — Articles 12 and 72 — Loss of ‘similar control’ conditions as a result of a business combination — Possibility for the successor operator to continue providing the service)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, merger, provision of services, public procurement, shareholding, tendering, waste management








C_2022257EN.01000902.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Comune di Lerici v Provincia di La Spezia
(Case C-719/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Waste management - In-house award - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 12 and 72 - Loss of ‘similar control’ conditions as a result of a business combination - Possibility for the successor operator to continue providing the service)
(2022/C 257/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Comune di Lerici

Defendant: Provincia di La Spezia

Interveners: IREN SpA, ACAM Ambiente SpA

Operative part of the judgment

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 rules or a national practice under which the performance of a public contract, initially awarded without any tendering procedure to an in-house entity over which the contracting authority exercised, jointly, a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments, is automatically continued by the economic operator which acquired that entity, following a tendering procedure, where that contracting authority does not have such control over that operator and does not hold any shares in its capital.


(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10616 – CAF / CORADIA POLYVALENT BUSINESS / TALENT 3 BUSINESS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 193/04
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, railway industry








C_2022193EN.01001701.xml










12.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10616 – CAF / CORADIA POLYVALENT BUSINESS / TALENT 3 BUSINESS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 193/04)

1.   
On 2 May 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, S.A. (‘CAF’, Spain),










—


Alstom’s Coradia Polyvalent mainline rolling stock platform and Alstom’s production facility located in Reichshoffen (‘Coradia Polyvalent Business’, France),










—


Bombardier’s Talent 3 mainline rolling stock platform (‘Talent 3 Business’, Germany).




CAF will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the Coradia Polyvalent Business and the Talent 3 Business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


CAF is a rolling stock manufacturer of different types of railway vehicles with production plants in Spain, France, United Kingdom, United States, Mexico and Brazil;










—


Coradia Polyvalent Business is a mainline train platform, currently manufactured in the Reichshoffen plant in France. It is a flexible platform capable of achieving regional (up to 160 km/h) and intercity (between 200 and 249 km/h) speeds in electric or bi-mode traction;










—


Talent 3 Business is amainline train platform, currently manufactured at Alstom’s Hennigsdorf and Bautzen sites in Germany. It is a flexible platform capable of achieving regional speeds (up to and including 160 km/h) with electric traction.






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.10616 – CAF / CORADIA POLYVALENT BUSINESS / TALENT 3 BUSINESS
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’).
Case C-430/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Christoph Klein v European Commission (Appeal — Article 265 TFEU — Action for failure to act — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical devices — Article 8(1) and (2) — Safeguard clause procedure — Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device — Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the European Commission — Absence of a decision — Admissibility — Locus standi — Out of time — Request for action to be taken within a reasonable time — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons of the General Court of the European Union)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, limitation of legal proceedings, market approval, medical device, operation of the Institutions, protective clause








C_2022257EN.01000601.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/6






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Christoph Klein v European Commission
(Case C-430/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 265 TFEU - Action for failure to act - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Article 8(1) and (2) - Safeguard clause procedure - Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device - Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the European Commission - Absence of a decision - Admissibility - Locus standi - Out of time - Request for action to be taken within a reasonable time - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons of the General Court of the European Union)
(2022/C 257/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by C. Hermes, F. Thiran and M. Jáuregui Gómez, and subsequently by C. Hermes and F. Thiran, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 2 July 2020, Klein v Commission (T-562/19, EU:T:2020:300), in so far as the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application made by Mr Christoph Klein under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the European Commission unlawfully failed to act in the safeguard clause procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 and adopt a decision in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices in respect of the device Inhaler Broncho Air®;










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case C-644/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — W.J. v L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Determination of the applicable law — Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations — Article 3 — Habitual residence of the creditor — Point in time when habitual residence is to be determined — Wrongful retention of a child)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrest, child, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, maintenance obligation, residence








C_2022257EN.01000802.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/8






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — W.J. v L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.
(Case C-644/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Determination of the applicable law - Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations - Article 3 - Habitual residence of the creditor - Point in time when habitual residence is to be determined - Wrongful retention of a child)
(2022/C 257/11)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: W.J.

Respondents: L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the law applicable to the maintenance claim of a minor child removed by one of his or her parents to the territory of a Member State, the fact that a court of that Member State has ordered, in separate proceedings, the return of that child to the State where he or she was habitually resident with his or her parents immediately before his or her removal is not sufficient to prevent that child from acquiring habitual residence on the territory of that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case C-556/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Schneider Electric SE and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 90/435/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Article 4 and Article 7(2) — Prevention of economic double taxation of dividends)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, approximation of laws, corporation tax, double taxation, parent company, profit, shareholder, subsidiary, tax law








C_2022257EN.01000701.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/7






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Schneider Electric SE and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance
(Case C-556/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 90/435/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Article 4 and Article 7(2) - Prevention of economic double taxation of dividends)
(2022/C 257/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Schneider Electric SE, Axa SA, BNP Paribas SA, Engie SA, Orange SA, L’Air Liquide, société anonyme pour l’étude et l’exploitation des procédés Georges Claude

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — which provides that a parent company is liable for an advance payment of tax in the event of a redistribution to its shareholders of profits paid by its subsidiaries which gives rise to the allocation of a tax credit, where those profits have not been subject to corporation tax at the ordinary rate — where the sums due in respect of that advance payment of tax exceed the 5 % ceiling provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive. Such an advance payment of tax is not covered by Article 7(2) of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021
Case C-426/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos — Portugal) — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Article 5(1) — Principle of equal treatment — Article 3(1)(f) — Concept of ‘basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers’ — Compensation for paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus in the event of termination of the employment relationship)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bonus payment, equal treatment, indemnification, paid leave, temporary employment, temporary employment agency, termination of employment, working conditions








C_2022257EN.01000501.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/5






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos — Portugal) — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA
(Case C-426/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 5(1) - Principle of equal treatment - Article 3(1)(f) - Concept of ‘basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers’ - Compensation for paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus in the event of termination of the employment relationship)
(2022/C 257/06)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: GD, ES

Defendant: Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(f) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the compensation to which temporary agency workers are entitled in the event of termination of their employment relationship with a user undertaking, in respect of paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus, is less than the compensation to which those workers would be entitled, in the same situation and on the same basis, if they had been recruited directly by that user undertaking to occupy the same post for the same period.


(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Case C-505/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by RR, JG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union — Directive 2014/42/EU — Article 4 — Confiscation — Article 7 — Freezing — Article 8 — Procedural guarantees — Freezing and confiscation of property belonging to a person unconnected with the criminal proceedings — National legislation not providing for third party remedies during court proceedings and not allowing for the possible return of the property before the end of the criminal proceedings)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, crime, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial proceedings, ownership, seizure of goods








C_2022257EN.01000602.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by RR, JG
(Case C-505/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union - Directive 2014/42/EU - Article 4 - Confiscation - Article 7 - Freezing - Article 8 - Procedural guarantees - Freezing and confiscation of property belonging to a person unconnected with the criminal proceedings - National legislation not providing for third party remedies during court proceedings and not allowing for the possible return of the property before the end of the criminal proceedings)
(2022/C 257/08)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: RR, JG

Intervener: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where property is frozen as the instrumentalities or alleged proceeds of an offence, the owner of that property, a third party acting in good faith, has no right, during the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings, to apply to the competent court for the return of that property.










2.


Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the confiscation of property belonging to a third party acting in good faith and used as an instrumentality of an offence, even where that property has been made available by that third party for the permanent use of the accused person.






(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.