do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-372/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 9 June 2022 — CM v DN
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, parental responsibility, residence, rights of access








C_2022359EN.01002801.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 9 June 2022 — CM v DN
(Case C-372/22)
(2022/C 359/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CM

Defendant: DN

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (1) apply:






(a)


to an application to modify rights of access as defined by Article 2(10) of that regulation, made by a person granted such rights by a judicial decision which, in the interests of the children, was not to take effect until a future time, but which became final and has the status of res judicata, delivered in the State in which the children were formerly habitually resident more than four months before the application is brought before the court on the basis of Article 9(1);










(b)


so as to exclude, if it does so apply, the general rule of jurisdiction contained in Article 8 of that regulation,




notwithstanding that recital 12 of that regulation states that ‘the grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility established in the present Regulation are shaped in the light of the best interests of the child, in particular on the criterion of proximity[; t]his means that jurisdiction should lie in the first place with the Member State of the child’s habitual residence, except for certain cases of a change in the child’s residence …’?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the jurisdiction which thus exists under Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, which is expressed to be ‘by way of exception to Article 8’ of that regulation, preclude the application of Article 15 of the same regulation, which is expressed to apply ‘by way of exception’ and where it ‘is in the best interests of the child’?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Landsréttur dated 9 June 2022 in the case of Verkfræðingafélag Íslands, Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga og Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands v the Icelandic State (Case E-9/22) 2022/C 385/06
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, collective dismissal, labour law, overtime, temporary employment, wage earner, work contract








C_2022385EN.01002401.xml










6.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/24






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Landsréttur dated 9 June 2022 in the case of Verkfræðingafélag Íslands, Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga og Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands v the Icelandic State
(Case E-9/22)
(2022/C 385/06)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court, dated 9 June 2022, from Landsréttur (the Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 June 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Verkfræðingafélag Íslands) (Association of Chartered Engineers in Iceland), Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga (Computer Scientists’ Union) and Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands (Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland) versus the Icelandic State, on the following questions:






1.


Does it follow from Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC, and also from the principle of effectiveness, that an employer who intends to terminate contracts with a group of workers covering fixed overtime is required to observe the procedural rules laid down in the Directive, including as regards consultation with workers’ representatives under Article 2 of the Directive and notification of the competent public authority under Article 3 of the Directive?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the employer’s obligation cease to apply if termination of contracts covering fixed overtime does not subsequently result in the full termination of the workers’ employment contracts?










3.


Is it of significance for the answer to the first two questions whether the contracts covering fixed overtime which the employer terminates were specifically made in independent contracts that were additional to the workers’ employment contracts?
Case T-493/21: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2022 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission (Action for annulment — Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance — Non-Member State — National public procurement — Termination of the contract by the contracting authority — Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee — Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-Member State — Lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Türkiye, Union delegation, debt, guarantee, pre-accession aid, principle of proportionality, redemption, rights of the defence








C_2022303EN.01004702.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/47






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2022 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission
(Case T-493/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Non-Member State - National public procurement - Termination of the contract by the contracting authority - Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee - Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-Member State - Lack of jurisdiction)
(2022/C 303/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and D. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the countersignature affixed on 29 April 2021 by the Delegation of the European Union in Ankara (Turkey) to the letter of enforcement of the bank guarantee of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.
Case C-380/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-342/17, Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, control of restrictive practices, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2022303EN.01002501.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/25






Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-342/17, Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission
(Case C-380/22 P)
(2022/C 303/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, and R. Benditz, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);










—


in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; and










—


take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicants rely on one plea in law consisting of four limbs.
First limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law in failing to show that the conduct restricts ‘competition within the internal market’ pursuant to Article 101(1) TFEU.
Second limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law in finding that the Commission was entitled to take into account the effects of a single and continuous infringement as a whole.
Third limb, alleging that the General Court wrongly substituted its own assessment of qualified effects for that of the Commission.
Fourth limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law by holding that the relevant facts give rise to immediate, substantial and foreseeable effects under the qualified effects test.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Philippines on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Philippines, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2022156EN.01000101.xml










9.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Philippines on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Philippines on certain aspects of air services, signed in Brussels on 29 November 2018, entered into force on 24 May 2022, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 24 May 2022.
Case T-348/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, countervailing charge, flat product, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2022294EN.01003601.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/36






Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission
(Case T-348/22)
(2022/C 294/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 of 15 March 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (1); and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





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 Commission violated Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(1)(a), 4(3) and (5) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by countervailing schemes that were not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of the basic Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission used erroneous benchmarks in the determination of benefit and calculation of the amount of the countervailable subsidies, in violation of Articles 3(2), 6(a), (b), and (d), and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to allocate the amount of subsidy concerning the provision of nickel ore over the production of the product concerned during the investigation period, in violation of Articles 7(2) and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.






(1)  OJ 2022 L 88, p. 24.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).