do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-245/21 and C-248/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Articles 27 and 29 — Transfer of the person concerned to the Member State responsible for the examination of his or her request — Suspension of the transfer due to the COVID-19 pandemic — Impossibility of carrying out the transfer — Judicial protection — Consequences for the time limit for transfer)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, appeal, coronavirus disease, enforcement of ruling, epidemic, foreign national, judicial review, removal, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2022424EN.01001201.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21)
(Joined Cases C-245/21 and C-248/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Articles 27 and 29 - Transfer of the person concerned to the Member State responsible for the examination of his or her request - Suspension of the transfer due to the COVID-19 pandemic - Impossibility of carrying out the transfer - Judicial protection - Consequences for the time limit for transfer)
(2022/C 424/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat (Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community)

Defendants: MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(4) and Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person
must be interpreted as meaning that:
the time limit for transfer provided for in the latter provision is not interrupted where the competent authorities of a Member State adopt, on the basis of Article 27(4) of that regulation, a revocable decision to suspend the implementation of a transfer decision on the grounds that such implementation is materially impossible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.


(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2022/C 363/06
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, education, epidemic








C_2022363EN.01000601.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/6






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2022/C 363/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


13 June 2022




Case No


88798




Decision No


144/22/COL




EFTA State


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Covid-19 Aid to Icelandic Aviation Academies




Legal basis


The legal basis of the scheme is a Memorandum to the Government from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Education and Children, the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs and the Minister of Infrastructure.




Type of measure


Grant scheme




Objective


The objective of the measure is to ensure access to liquidity for Aviation Academies.




Form of aid


Direct grants




Budget


ISK 240 million (approximately EUR 1,7 million)




Duration


March 2020 – June 2022




Economic sectors


Aviation Academies (NACE 85.41)




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Education and Children




Sölvhólsgata 4




101 Reykjavík




ICELAND








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Notice of Open Competition 2022/C 363/08
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: Internet site, accounting, assistant, competition (EU), financial management, information technology profession, job vacancy, public procurement, recruitment, social media








C_2022363EN.01000801.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/8






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2022/C 363/08)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AST/154/22 – Assistants (AST 3) in in the following fields:






1.


Financial management










2.


Accounting and treasury










3.


Public procurement










4.


Graphic design and visual content production










5.


Social and digital media










6.


Webmaster




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union C 363 A of 22 September 2022.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case C-609/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — FN
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, international protection, right of asylum, sexual discrimination, stateless person, woman, women's rights








C_2023015EN.01002401.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — FN
(Case C-609/22)
(2023/C 15/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: FN

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (BFA)

Questions referred







1.


Is the accumulation of measures taken, supported or tolerated in a State by a de facto government actor and consisting, in particular, of the fact that women






—


are denied participation in political office and political decision-making processes,










—


are provided with no legal means to be able to obtain protection from gender-based and domestic violence,










—


are generally at risk of forced marriages; even though they have been prohibited by the de facto government actor, women are not afforded effective protection against forced marriages and such marriages are sometimes performed with the participation of de facto government actors in the knowledge that it is a forced marriage,










—


are not allowed to engage in gainful employment or are allowed to do so only to a limited extent, mainly at home,










—


have difficulties in accessing health facilities,










—


are fully or largely denied access to education (for example by allowing girls only a primary school education),










—


are not allowed to be or move about in public without being accompanied by a man (who must be of a certain family relationship) or, at most, are permitted to do so only a certain distance from home,










—


must completely cover their bodies and veil their faces in public,










—


may not take part in any sports,




as referred to in Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), to be regarded as sufficiently severe as to affect a woman in a similar manner as described in Article 9(1)(a) of that directive?










2.


Is it sufficient, for the granting of asylum status, that a woman is affected by those measures in the country of origin merely on the basis of her gender, or is it necessary to assess a woman’s individual situation in order to determine whether she is affected by those measures — to be considered in their entirety — within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.
Case C-608/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — AH
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, international protection, right of asylum, sexual discrimination, stateless person, woman, women's rights








C_2023015EN.01002301.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2022 — AH
(Case C-608/22)
(2023/C 15/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: AH

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (BFA)

Questions referred







1.


Is the accumulation of measures taken, supported or tolerated in a State by a de facto government actor and consisting, in particular, of the fact that women






—


are denied participation in political office and political decision-making processes,










—


are provided with no legal means to be able to obtain protection from gender-based and domestic violence,










—


are generally at risk of forced marriages; even though they have been prohibited by the de facto government actor, women are not afforded effective protection against forced marriages and such marriages are sometimes performed with the participation of de facto government actors in the knowledge that it is a forced marriage,










—


are not allowed to engage in gainful employment or are allowed to do so only to a limited extent, mainly at home,










—


have difficulties in accessing health facilities,










—


are fully or largely denied access to education (for example by allowing girls only a primary school education),










—


are not allowed to be or move about in public without being accompanied by a man (who must be of a certain family relationship) or, at most, are permitted to do so only a certain distance from home,










—


must completely cover their bodies and veil their faces in public,










—


may not take part in any sports,




as referred to in Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), to be regarded as sufficiently severe as to affect a woman in a similar manner as described in Article 9(1)(a) of that directive?










2.


Is it sufficient, for the granting of asylum status, that a woman is affected by those measures in the country of origin merely on the basis of her gender, or is it necessary to assess a woman’s individual situation in order to determine whether she is affected by those measures — to be considered in their entirety — within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.
Case T-624/21: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran — Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Prohibition of reformatio in pejus — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, retail trade, special chemicals, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022463EN.01004601.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/46






Order of the General Court of 22 September 2022 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran)
(Case T-624/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark prımagran - Earlier EU figurative mark PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Prohibition of reformatio in pejus - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 463/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Primagran sp. z o.o. (Stegna, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2021 (Case R 2486/2020-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Primagran sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz.






(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10827 –SCINTIA / BEIERSDORF) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 363/11
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2022363EN.01001701.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10827 –SCINTIA / BEIERSDORF)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 363/11)

1.   
On 13 September 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:






—


Scintia Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH (‘Scintia’, Germany) and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder, a natural person,










—


Beiersdorf AG (‘Beiersdorf’, Germany), ultimately controlled by Scintia and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder as well as Trivium Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder, a natural person.




Scintia and its ultimately controlling shareholder will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) control of the whole of Beiersdorf.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract or any other means.


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






—


Scintia is an investment vehicle incorporated under the laws of Germany,










—


Beiersdorf is a globally active producer and supplier of skin, body and hair care products as well as self-adhesive products.






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.10827 – SCINTIA / BEIERSDORF
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.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2022/1032 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2022 amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1938 and (EC) No 715/2009 with regard to gas storage (Official Journal of the European Union L 173 of 30 June 2022)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, EU energy policy, consumer protection, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, security of supply, self-sufficiency in energy, storage of hydrocarbons, strategic reserves








L_2022245EN.01007001.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 245/70







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2022/1032 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2022 amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1938 and (EC) No 715/2009 with regard to gas storage

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 173 of 30 June 2022
)


On page 27, Article 1, point (2), in new Article 6d(1)(b):
for:






‘(b)


from 2023: as set pursuant to Article 6a(4).’,




read:






‘(b)


from 2023: as set pursuant to Article 6a(7).’.
Case T-589/22: Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Silgan Holdings and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, abuse of power, cartel, control of restrictive practices, metal product, national law, packaging product, principle of subsidiarity, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2022424EN.01004901.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/49






Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Silgan Holdings and Others v Commission
(Case T-589/22)
(2022/C 424/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Silgan Holdings, Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut, United States), Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Silgan International Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH (Meissen, Germany), Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, H. Wollmann, R. Grafunder, Y.-K. Gürer and E. Venot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2022) 4761 final of 12 July 2022 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.40522 — Metal Packaging (ex ‘Pandora’)).
In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following three pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the defendant due to an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity
The defendant was not competent to conduct the proceeding against Silgan or to adopt the contested decision. In view of the in-depth investigations and the fact that the national proceedings permitted a final decision, the Bundeskartellamt (German competition authority) was in a position to bring an end to the investigation procedure in the present case. The defendant was not in a better position to conduct the proceeding.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers
The opening of the proceeding and the adoption of the decision by the defendant were guided by irrelevant considerations. They were carried out in order to circumvent the provisions provided for under German law on penalties imposed for infringements of Article 101 TFEU and to close a supposed loophole in German law on penalties.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
The defendant infringed the principle of sound administration and thus infringed the applicants’ fundamental right under Article 41 of the Charter, since the contested decision is disproportionate, is contrary to the applicants’ legitimate expectations and runs counter to the principle that the administration is bound by its own acts.