do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-587/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of A v HK/Danmark, HK/Privat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 3(1)(a) and (d) — Scope — Post of elected sector convenor of an organisation of workers — Statutes of that organisation under which only members under the age of 60 or 61 on the date of the election are eligible to stand as sector convenor)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, status of the person elected, trade union, trade union election








C_2022284EN.01000701.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/7






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of A v HK/Danmark, HK/Privat
(Case C-587/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 3(1)(a) and (d) - Scope - Post of elected sector convenor of an organisation of workers - Statutes of that organisation under which only members under the age of 60 or 61 on the date of the election are eligible to stand as sector convenor)
(2022/C 284/04)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of A

Defendants: HK/Danmark, HK/Privat

Intervener: Fagbevægelsens Hovedorganisation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that an age limit laid down in the statutes of an organisation of workers for eligibility to stand as sector convenor of that organisation falls within the scope of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Case C-43/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — FCC Česká republika, s.r.o. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí, Městská část Ďáblice, Spolek pro Ďáblice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2010/75/EU — Article 3(9) — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Procedure for amending a permit — Participation of the public concerned — Concept of ‘substantial change’ to the installation — Extension of the duration of operation of a landfill)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: industrial pollution, pollution control, prevention of pollution, waste disposal








C_2022284EN.01000901.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — FCC Česká republika, s.r.o. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí, Městská část Ďáblice, Spolek pro Ďáblice
(Case C-43/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/75/EU - Article 3(9) - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Procedure for amending a permit - Participation of the public concerned - Concept of ‘substantial change’ to the installation - Extension of the duration of operation of a landfill)
(2022/C 284/07)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FCC Česká republika, s.r.o.

Defendants: Ministerstvo životního prostředí, Městská část Ďáblice, Spolek pro Ďáblice

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(9) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) must be interpreted as meaning that the mere extension of the duration of waste disposal at a landfill, without any change in the maximum approved dimensions of the installation or its total capacity, does not constitute a ‘substantial change’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Case C-112/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Classic Coach Company vof, Y, Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Rights conferred by a trade mark — Article 6(2) — Limitation of the effects of the trade mark — Impossibility for the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent a third party from using, in the course of trade, an earlier right applying in a particular locality — Requirements — Concept of ‘earlier right’ — Trade name — Proprietor of a later trade mark with an even earlier right — Relevance)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022284EN.01000902.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/9






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Classic Coach Company vof, Y, Z
(Case C-112/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Article 6(2) - Limitation of the effects of the trade mark - Impossibility for the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent a third party from using, in the course of trade, an earlier right applying in a particular locality - Requirements - Concept of ‘earlier right’ - Trade name - Proprietor of a later trade mark with an even earlier right - Relevance)
(2022/C 284/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X BV

Defendants: Classic Coach Company vof, Y, Z

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of establishing the existence of an ‘earlier right’ within the meaning of that provision, there is no requirement that the proprietor of that right must be able to prohibit the use of the later mark by the proprietor of that mark;










2.


Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘earlier right’ within the meaning of that provision may be granted to a third party in a situation in which the proprietor of the later trade mark has an even earlier right recognised by the laws of the Member State in question over the sign registered as a trade mark to the extent that, under those laws, the proprietor of the trade mark and of the even earlier right may no longer, on the basis of its even earlier right, prohibit the use by the third party of its more recent right.






(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.
Case C-196/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — SR v EW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 5 — Translation of the document — Translation costs borne by the applicant — Concept of ‘applicant’ — Service, by the court before which proceedings have been brought, of judicial documents on interveners in the proceedings)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, legal expenses, translation








C_2022284EN.01001101.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/11






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — SR v EW
(Case C-196/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 5 - Translation of the document - Translation costs borne by the applicant - Concept of ‘applicant’ - Service, by the court before which proceedings have been brought, of judicial documents on interveners in the proceedings)
(2022/C 284/10)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SR

Defendant: EW

Interveners: FB, CX, IK

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court orders the transmission of judicial documents to third parties that apply for leave to intervene in the proceedings, that court cannot be regarded as being the ‘applicant’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Case C-122/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 87/357/EEC — Article 1(2) — Scope — Non-food products that may be confused with foodstuffs — Concept — Risk of suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract — No presumption of danger — Proof)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health risk, market approval, product safety, proof








C_2022284EN.01001001.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba
(Case C-122/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 87/357/EEC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Non-food products that may be confused with foodstuffs - Concept - Risk of suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract - No presumption of danger - Proof)
(2022/C 284/09)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited

Defendant: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

Intervening party: V.U.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 87/357/EEC of 25 June 1987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning products which, appearing to be other than they are, endanger the health or safety of consumers must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to demonstrate by objective and substantiated data that placing in the mouth, sucking or ingesting products which, although not foodstuffs, possess a form, odour, colour, appearance, packaging, labelling, volume or size, such that it is likely that consumers, especially children, will confuse them with foodstuffs and in consequence place them in their mouths, or suck or ingest them may entail risks such as suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract. Nevertheless, the competent national authorities must assess on a case-by-case basis whether a product meets the conditions listed in that provision and justify their assessment that that is the case.


(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10765 – KKR / OTPP / HIGHWAYS TRUST) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 218/05
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, road network, transport infrastructure








C_2022218EN.01000701.xml










2.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10765 – KKR / OTPP / HIGHWAYS TRUST)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 218/05)

1.   
On 18 May 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, United States),










—


Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada),










—


Highways Infrastructure Trust (‘Highways Trust’, India), controlled by KKR.




KKR and OTPP will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Highways Trust.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


KKR is a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions worldwide.










—


OTPP administrates pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets of active and retired teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario worldwide.










—


Highways Trust is an infrastructure investment trust which holds companies active in the design, finance, construction, operation and maintenance of roads in India.






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.
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.


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.10765 – KKR / OTPP / HIGHWAYS TRUST
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.
Case T-17/22: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2022 — Tóth v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — OLAF investigation concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív — Application for access to the final investigation report — Implied refusal of access — Express decision to grant access adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, access to EU information








C_2022284EN.01004201.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/42






Order of the General Court of 2 June 2022 — Tóth v Commission
(Case T-17/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - OLAF investigation concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív - Application for access to the final investigation report - Implied refusal of access - Express decision to grant access adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 284/57)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the implied decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 November 2021 by which OLAF rejected his confirmatory application for access to the document entitled ‘Final OLAF Report OF/2015/0034/B4 concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív Zrt’.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Case C-541/21 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — Joëlle Mélin v European Parliament (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament — Article 33(1) and (2) — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Plea of illegality — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Assessment of the evidence — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, claim, financial interests of members, legality, principle of legal certainty, servant (EU)








C_2022368EN.01000901.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/9






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — Joëlle Mélin v European Parliament
(Case C-541/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 33(1) and (2) - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Plea of illegality - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Assessment of the evidence - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
(2022/C 368/11)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Joëlle Mélin (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


Ms Joëlle Mélin shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Special report No 8/2022 ERDF support for SME competitiveness – design weaknesses decrease effectiveness of funding 2022/C 218/04
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, competitiveness, eligibility criteria, investment, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2022218EN.01000601.xml










2.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/6






Special report No 8/2022
ERDF support for SME competitiveness – design weaknesses decrease effectiveness of funding
(2022/C 218/04)
The Court of Auditors has published its Special report No 8/2022: ‘ERDF support for SME competitiveness – design weaknesses decrease effectiveness of funding’.
The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61108
Case C-299/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — EM v European Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — European Parliament — Member of the temporary staff in the service of a political group — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 7 — Transfer — Article 12 and Article 12a(3) — Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ — Failure to assign tasks — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Request for assistance — Loss or harm — Compensation)
Date: 2022-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, harassment at work, indemnification, legal aid, political group, psychological harassment, reassignment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2022284EN.01001102.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/11






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — EM v European Parliament
(Case C-299/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - European Parliament - Member of the temporary staff in the service of a political group - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 7 - Transfer - Article 12 and Article 12a(3) - Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ - Failure to assign tasks - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Request for assistance - Loss or harm - Compensation)
(2022/C 284/11)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, L. Darie and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19, not published, EU:T:2021:111), to the extent that the General Court rejected the claims for compensation in the action, in so far as they sought reparation for the loss or harm suffered by the appellant as a result of being prevented from carrying out tasks during the period from 8 December 2016 to 1 June 2018, the date of his retirement;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;










3.


Orders the European Parliament to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 7 500 to EM;










4.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-599/19 and the appeal proceedings and to pay half of the costs incurred by EM in relation to those proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.