do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-589/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de las Islas Baleares (Spain) lodged on 7 September 2022 — J.L.O.G., J.J.O.P. v Resorts Mallorca Hotels International S.L.
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, industrial restructuring, labour law, labour relations








C_2022472EN.01003001.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de las Islas Baleares (Spain) lodged on 7 September 2022 — J.L.O.G., J.J.O.P. v Resorts Mallorca Hotels International S.L.
(Case C-589/22)
(2022/C 472/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de las Islas Baleares

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: J.L.O.G., J.J.O.P.

Respondent: Resorts Mallorca Hotels International S.L.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, (1) read in the light of the case-law the Court of Justice of the European Union set out in the judgment of 10 September 2009 (C-44/08, (2) EU:C:2009:533),
be interpreted as meaning that the consultation and notification requirements, which underpin the effectiveness of the Directive, arise as soon as an undertaking, as part of a restructuring process, projects a number of terminations of employment contracts which may exceed the collective redundancy threshold, irrespective of the fact that, ultimately, the number of assimilable dismissals or terminations does not reach that threshold on account of measures taken by the employer, without prior consultation with the workers’ representatives, to reduce that number?










2.


Does the provision in the final subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, which states that ‘for the purpose of calculating the number of redundancies provided for in the first subparagraph of point (a), terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned shall be assimilated to redundancies, provided that there are at least five redundancies’,
in the context of a crisis in which a reduction in the workforce, including through dismissals, is expected, cover worker redundancies proposed by an undertaking, which although not sought by the workers, were accepted by them on receipt of a firm offer of immediate employment at another undertaking, when it was the employer who arranged for its employees to have the option of being interviewed by that other undertaking with a view to their possible recruitment?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

(2)  Judgment of 10 September, Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK and Others (C-44/08, EU:C:2009:533).
Case C-588/22 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, State aid, aid for restructuring, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, right of establishment








C_2022424EN.01003301.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/33






Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)
(Case C-588/22 P)
(2022/C 424/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, abogados, E. Vahida, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that European Commission Decision C(2020) 3970 final of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 (2020/N) — Finland COVID-19: Recapitalisation of Finnair is void; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by the appellant, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
First, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the misapplication of the Temporary Framework and Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
Second, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the non-discrimination and proportionality principles.
Third, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the fundamental freedoms of establishment and provision of services.
Fourth, the General Court and the Commission failed to adequately state reasons.
Case T-651/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines — Action for annulment — Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access — No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action — Total and partial refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, coronavirus disease, delivery, disclosure of information, epidemic, trade information, vaccine








C_2022418EN.01003201.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/32






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Saure v Commission
(Case T-651/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines - Action for annulment - Express decisions adopted after implied refusal of access - No lis pendens on account of the inadmissibility of another action - Total and partial refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, the protection of legal advice, the protection of the decision-making process and the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
(2022/C 418/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of the European Commission of 11 August 2021, granting him partial access to certain documents and refusing access to other documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Case T-217/20: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — Rural Development — Key controls — Flat-rate financial corrections — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, rural development








C_2022418EN.01001801.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/18






Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-217/20) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Rural Development - Key controls - Flat-rate financial corrections - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration)
(2022/C 418/21)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopoulou and E.-E. Krompa, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and M. Kaduczak, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Hellenic Republic seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/201 of 12 February 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2020 L 42, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a Contracting Entity 2022/C 343/05
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: France, award of contract, energy grid, heating








C_2022343EN.01007701.xml










7.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/77






Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting Entity
(2022/C 343/05)
On 20 July 2022 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 22 July 2022.
This request, submitted by the French authorities on behalf of Dalkia S.A., concerns the delegated management of district heating networks in France. Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.
The Commission is allowed a period of 130 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. This period therefore expires on 1 February 2023.
According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same sector or activity in France before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case C-583/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2022 — Criminal proceedings against MV
Date: 2022-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU








C_2022424EN.01003202.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2022 — Criminal proceedings against MV
(Case C-583/22)
(2022/C 424/43)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

MV

Other party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Questions referred







1.


In view of the principle of equal treatment under Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, (1) and against the background of Article 3(5) of that decision, in the case of an actually existing situation of a cumulative sentence involving convictions handed down in Germany and in another EU Member State, can a sentence be imposed for the offence committed in Germany even where a notional inclusion of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State would mean that the maximum permissible level under German law for a cumulative sentence for non-life custodial sentences is exceeded?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Must the taking into account of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State, as provided for under the second sentence of Article 3(5) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, take place in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the impossibility to form a subsequent cumulative sentence is to be specifically documented and justified in the sentencing for the offence committed in Germany, in accordance with the principles governing the formation of cumulative sentences under German law?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings (OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32).