do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-393/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 June 2022 — EXTÉRIA, s. r. o. v Spravíme, s. r. o.
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, provision of services








C_2022359EN.01003201.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 June 2022 — EXTÉRIA, s. r. o. v Spravíme, s. r. o.
(Case C-393/22)
(2022/C 359/36)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EXTÉRIA, s. r. o.

Defendant: Spravíme, s. r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that the concept ‘contract for the provision of services’ also includes a contract to enter into a future contract (pactum de contrahendo), in which the parties undertook to enter into a future contract that would be a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case T-531/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission (Civil service — Officials — 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations — Reimbursement of annual travel expenses — Place of origin located in a third country — Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, migrant worker, nationality, staff regulations (EU), third country








C_2022303EN.01003401.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/34






Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission
(Case T-531/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
(2022/C 303/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Vasile Dumitrescu (Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Belgium), Guido Schwarz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin and for an order requiring the Commission to make a reimbursement of annual travel expenses to the applicants’ place of origin that covers their actual expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vasile Dumitrescu and Guido Schwarz to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-7/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-533/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YV and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations — Reimbursement of annual travel expenses — Place of origin located in a third country — Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, migrant worker, nationality, staff regulations (EU), third country








C_2022303EN.01003501.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/35






Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YV and Others v Commission
(Case T-533/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
(2022/C 303/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: YV, YW, YZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, T. Van Lysebeth and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce or discontinue, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders YV, YW and YZ to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-10/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case C-396/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, extradition, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, primacy of EU law








C_2022359EN.01003401.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
(Case C-396/22)
(2022/C 359/39)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred







1.


Must proceedings for the subsequent determination of a cumulative sentence still also be considered to fall within the scope of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) where the decision is taken by way of a judgment following a hearing, but, in that judgment, the finding of guilt cannot be reviewed and the sentence imposed in respect of the individual offence cannot be amended?










2.


Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
Decision to take resolution action in respect of Sberbank d.d. 2022/C 231/09
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: Single Resolution Board
Subjects: EU banking union, aid to undertakings, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, financial risk








C_2022231EN.01001901.xml










15.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/19






Decision to take resolution action in respect of Sberbank d.d.
(2022/C 231/09)
On 1 March 2022, the Single Resolution Board decided to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank d.d. This decision is based on Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1). The main elements of this decision are as follows:






Date of adoption of the decision


1 March 2022




Decision No


SRB/EES/2022/21




Addressee


Croatian National Bank




Institution under resolution


Sberbank d.d.




Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power


No




Resolution action


Sale of Business tool




Purchaser


Hrvatska Poštanska Banka




Fund aid


No




More information about this decision can be found on the SRB’s official Internet: https://www.srb.europa.eu/en/cases


(1)  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Call for applications – Director of Human Resources and Personnel Administration (Grade AD 14 or AD 15) (Official Journal of the European Union C 223 A of 8 June 2022) 2022/C 231/14
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), managing director, personnel administration








C_2022231EN.01004201.xml










15.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/42






Corrigendum to Call for applications – Director of Human Resources and Personnel Administration (Grade AD 14 or AD 15)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 223 A of 8 June 2022
)

(2022/C 231/14)
On page 2, under the point IV. SALARY AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:
for:

“By way of guidance, the monthly basic salary of an official at Grade AD 14, step 1, is EUR 15 255 and of an official at Grade AD 15, step 1, EUR 17 226.”

read:

“By way of guidance, the monthly basic salary of an official at Grade AD 14, step 1, is EUR 15 225 and of an official at Grade AD 15, step 1, EUR 17 226.”
Case T-380/20: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a radiator — Earlier designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Freedom of the designer — No scope for innovation — Overall impression)
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, heating








C_2022294EN.01002401.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/24






Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator)
(Case T-380/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a radiator - Earlier designs - Grounds for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Freedom of the designer - No scope for innovation - Overall impression)
(2022/C 294/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana) (represented by: L. Gazzola and G. Lugato, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 (Case R 1275/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tubes Radiatori Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Case T-545/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YY and ZA v Court of Justice of the European Union (Civil service — Officials — 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations — Reimbursement of annual travel expenses — Place of origin located in a third country — Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, migrant worker, nationality, staff regulations (EU), third country








C_2022303EN.01003602.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/36






Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YY and ZA v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-545/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
(2022/C 303/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: YY, ZA (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, T. Van Lysebeth and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce or discontinue, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Order YY and ZA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-36/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-532/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YT and YU v Commission (Civil service — Officials — 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations — Reimbursement of annual travel expenses — Place of origin located in a third country — Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, migrant worker, nationality, staff regulations (EU), third country








C_2022303EN.01003402.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/34






Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2022 — YT and YU v Commission
(Case T-532/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses - Place of origin located in a third country - Flat-rate payment calculated on the basis of the distance separating the place of employment from the capital of the Member State of which the official is a national)
(2022/C 303/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: YT, YU (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke, T. Van Lysebeth and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions to reduce, from 1 January 2014, the reimbursement of annual travel expenses enabling the applicants to maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders YT and YU to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-8/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case C-397/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, extradition, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, primacy of EU law








C_2022359EN.01003501.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/35






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
(Case C-397/22)
(2022/C 359/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Other party: LM

Questions referred







1.


In the case where a summons is served on an adult member of the addressee’s household, is Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) still to be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority must prove that the person concerned actually received the summons, or is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that service on the adult member of the addressee’s household proves actual knowledge where the person concerned does not plausibly demonstrate that (and explain why) he or she did not obtain knowledge of the summons?










2.


Where appeal proceedings have been conducted, is the concept of ‘trial’ in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, to be interpreted as relating to the trial which preceded the decision at first instance if only the requested person lodged an appeal and it was dismissed without examination of the merits?










3.


Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
Case C-398/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
Date: 2022-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, extradition, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, primacy of EU law








C_2022359EN.01003601.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
(Case C-398/22)
(2022/C 359/41)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Other party: RQ

Questions referred







1.


Where appeal proceedings have been conducted, is the concept of ‘trial’ in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) to be interpreted as relating to the trial which preceded the decision at first instance if only the requested person lodged an appeal and either it was dismissed without examination of the merits or the judgment at first instance was varied in his or her favour?










2.


Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).