do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-501/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural production, common organisation of markets, fruit, interprofessional agreement, market approval, vegetable








C_2022424EN.01002301.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
(Case C-501/22)
(2022/C 424/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Question referred

Must Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested and, in particular, whether that Article 164 authorises, where EU rules lay down marketing rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more stringent rules, in the form of an inter-trade agreement, and their extension to all operators?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
Case T-457/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01008701.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/87






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-457/22)
(2022/C 359/106)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic:






—


the order for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising:






—


EUR 50 880 189,61 and USD 2 897 002,31, the amount due to the EU as at 30 June 2022, which is principal of EUR 40 744 064,86 and USD 2 223 971,84, interest of EUR 5 161 649,64 and USD 341 462,46 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 4 974 475,11 and USD 331 568,01.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) (except for any disbursements in USD, a rate equal to the LIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) applies) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0.25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made.














—


the order for payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement since 9 August 2017 comprising EUR 11 416,23 and USD 760,94, the amounts due to the Bank as at 30 June 2022, which is contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 29 June 2022 (which is the date that the EU paid the related instalments of principal and interest under the 2000 Guarantee)).










—


the order for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the EU (subrogated to the Bank’s claims) and the amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the Bank as contractual default interest.
Notice for the attention of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine 2022/C 281 I/06
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, territorial dispute, territorial law








CI2022281EN.01000801.xml










22.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 281/8






Notice for the attention of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
(2022/C 281 I/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of the natural or legal persons, entities or bodies that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (3)as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 requires that those natural or legal persons, entities or bodies must report, before 2 September 2022, funds or economic resources within the jurisdiction of a Member State belonging to, owned, held or controlled by them, to the competent authority of the Member State where those funds or economic resources are located. They must cooperate with the national competent authority in any verification of such information. Failure to comply with these obligations will be considered as circumvention of the measures on the freezing of funds and of economic resources.
The information to be reported must be sent to the competent authority of the relevant Member State, via its website as indicated in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (5).
The obligation to report under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 does not apply until 1 January 2023 with regard to funds or economic resources located in a Member State which had laid down a similar reporting obligation under national law 21 July 2022.


(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 193, 21.7.2022, p. 219.

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

(4)  OJ L 194, 21.7.2022, p. 1.

(5)  Last consolidated version available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02014R0269-20220604&qid=1658251857077
Case T-455/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01008502.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/85






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-455/22)
(2022/C 359/104)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement with nr. 80212 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:






—


EUR 652 218,70, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 559 287,10, interest of EUR 38 925,60 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 54 006,00.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.














—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Case T-465/22: Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan








C_2022359EN.01008801.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/88






Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-465/22)
(2022/C 359/107)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:






—


EUR 233 051,96, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 200 900,30, interest of EUR 2 014,25 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 30 137,41.










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.














—


for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:
First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Case C-497/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EM v Roompot Service B.V.
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, law of obligations, leisure, property leasing, provision of services, real property








C_2022389EN.01000702.xml










10.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EM v Roompot Service B.V.
(Case C-497/22)
(2022/C 389/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: EM

Defendant and respondent: Roompot Service B.V.

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 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 (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case C-502/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural production, common organisation of markets, fruit, interprofessional agreement, market approval, vegetable








C_2022424EN.01002302.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
(Case C-502/22)
(2022/C 424/29)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the other cases, mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested?










2.


Where there are no specific Union rules relating to a given class of fruit or vegetables, is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than the applicable standards adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to which EU law refers?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.
Case C-504/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural production, common organisation of markets, fruit, harvest, interprofessional agreement, market approval, vegetable








C_2022424EN.01002402.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire
(Case C-504/22)
(2022/C 424/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 (1) to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested?










2.


Are rules fixing harvesting dates and marketing dates rules that can be laid down by inter-trade agreement and extended on the basis of Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 and, if so, are rules fixing harvesting dates and marketing dates ‘production rules’, as referred to in point (b) of Article 164(4) or, as Annex XVIa to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 (2) establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products[, as amended,] previously stipulated, ‘marketing rules’, as now referred to in point (d) of Article 164(4)?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
Case C-496/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EI v SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, labour law, worker consultation, workers' representation








C_2022398EN.01001302.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EI v SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL
(Case C-496/22)
(2022/C 398/17)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: EI

Respondent: SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL

Questions referred







1.


Do [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, (1) read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, preclude national legislation which allows an employer not to consult the workers affected by a collective redundancy procedure since they have neither appointed representatives nor a legal obligation to appoint them?










2.


Are [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances described above, the employer is required to inform and consult all the employees affected by the collective redundancy procedure?






(1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 05 Volume 005 P. 95).
Case C-492/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2022 — European arrest warrant issued against CJ; other party: Openbaar Ministerie
Date: 2022-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, detention before trial, enforcement of ruling, extradition, fundamental rights, imprisonment, public prosecution, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022368EN.01001801.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2022 — European arrest warrant issued against CJ; other party: Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-492/22)
(2022/C 368/27)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


European arrest warrant issued against: CJ

Other party: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 12 and 24(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a requested person, whose surrender for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence was definitively authorised but has been postponed ‘so that he or she may be prosecuted in the executing Member State … for an act other than that referred to in the European arrest warrant’, from being detained for the duration of that criminal prosecution in order to execute the European arrest warrant?










2.








(a)


Is the decision to exercise the power to postpone surrender provided for in Article 24(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA a decision on the execution of the [European arrest warrant] which, pursuant to Article 6(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, read in conjunction with recital 8 thereof, must be taken by the executing judicial authority?










(b)


If so, does the fact that that decision was taken without the intervention of an executing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA have the consequence that the requested person may no longer be detained for the purpose of executing the European arrest warrant issued against him?














3.








(a)


Does Article 24(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude the surrender of the requested person for the purpose of a criminal prosecution in the executing Member State for the sole reason that, upon request, the requested person does not wish to waive his right to be present at that criminal prosecution?










(b)


If so, which factors should the executing judicial authority then take into account when deciding whether to postpone the actual surrender?










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