do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Australia, cooperation agreement (EU), cooperation policy, framework agreement








L_2022272EN.01000101.xml










20.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 272/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part

The Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part (1), signed in Manila (Philippines) on 7 August 2017, will enter into force on 21 October 2022, the procedure provided for in Article 61(1) of the Agreement having been completed on 21 September 2022.


(1)  
            OJ L 237, 15.9.2017, p. 7.
Notice of open Competition 2022/C 404/08
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, climate change policy, competition (EU), energy industry, environmental policy, recruitment








C_2022404EN.01003601.xml










20.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/36






Notice of open Competition
(2022/C 404/08)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/401/22 Administrators (AD 6) in the fields of energy, climate and environment

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 404 A of 20 October 2022.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case T-653/21: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Callaway v Commission (Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Plant varieties — Producer of the hemp variety Finola — Areas cultivated in Poland — Hemp varieties eligible for financial support under the common agricultural policy — Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content — Authorisation given to Poland to prohibit the marketing of the Finola variety in its territory — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, financial aid, hemp, market approval, plant breeding








C_2022463EN.01004602.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/46






Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Callaway v Commission
(Case T-653/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Plant varieties - Producer of the hemp variety Finola - Areas cultivated in Poland - Hemp varieties eligible for financial support under the common agricultural policy - Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content - Authorisation given to Poland to prohibit the marketing of the Finola variety in its territory - Not directly concerned - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 463/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: James C. Callaway (Kuopio, Finland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker and F. Castilla Contreras, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, James C. Callaway, seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1214 of 22 July 2021 authorising Poland to prohibit the marketing on its territory of the hemp variety Finola pursuant to Council Directive 2002/53/EC (OJ 2021 L 265, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’). He also raises, under Article 277 TFEU, pleas of illegality in respect of Article 32(6) of Regulation No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes falling within the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608), as well as Article 9(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation No 1307/2013 and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.










3.


James C. Callaway shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10875 – AXA IM / SWISS LIFE / MORRISON & CO / LYNTIA NETWORKS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 404/10
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, New Zealand, Switzerland, economic concentration, health insurance, insurance company, investment, investment company, life assurance, merger control








C_2022404EN.01003901.xml










20.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/39






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10875 – AXA IM / SWISS LIFE / MORRISON & CO / LYNTIA NETWORKS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 404/10)

1.   
On 7 October 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:






—


AXA PIE Lux 4 S.à.r.l. (‘AXA’, France), controlled by AXA S.A.,










—


Swiss Life Investment S.à.r.l. (‘SLAM’, Switzerland), controlled by Swiss Life Holding AG,










—


Sorolla Investment Co S.à.r.l. (‘Sorolla’, New Zealand), controlled by H.R.L. Morrison & Co Group Limited Partnership (‘Morrison’),










—


Gunalta ITG, S.L.U. (‘Lyntia’, Spain), controlled by Antin Infrastructure Partners.




AXA, SLAM and Sorolla will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Lyntia.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


AXA is a global insurance group, active in life, health and other forms of insurance, as well as in investment management, headquartered in France,










—


SLAM is an asset management company that is part of the Swiss Life group, an insurance company listed in Switzerland, and










—


Sorolla is part of Morrison, an investment company investing on behalf of sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and wholesale investors, headquartered in New Zealand.






3.   
The business activities of the Target are the following:






—


Lyntia is a neutral optic fibre operator in the telecommunications market, mainly providing services through optic fibre.






4.   

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.



5.   
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.10875 – AXA IM / SWISS LIFE / MORRISON & CO / LYNTIA
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’).
Case C-301/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia and Others v YF and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(1) and (2) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation which leads to a situation in which the remuneration of certain judges is higher than that of other judges of the same rank and performing the same work — Article 1 — Purpose — Exhaustive nature of the discrimination referred to)
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal pay, equal treatment, judge, pay








C_2022472EN.01001401.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/14






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia and Others v YF and Others
(Case C-301/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation which leads to a situation in which the remuneration of certain judges is higher than that of other judges of the same rank and performing the same work - Article 1 - Purpose - Exhaustive nature of the discrimination referred to)
(2022/C 472/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, Curtea de Apel Cluj, Tribunalul Bihor, Tribunalul Satu Mare, Tribunalul Sălaj

Respondents: YF, KP, OJ, YS, SL, DB, SH

Other parties to the proceedings: Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării, Tribunalul Cluj

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation which — as interpreted in binding national case-law — leads to a situation in which the remuneration of certain judges appointed after that legislation entered into force is lower than that of judges appointed before that legislation entered into force, where there is no resulting direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age.










2.


Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding discrimination only where it is based on one of the criteria referred to expressly in Article 1 of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Case C-661/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 20 October 2022 — Bruc Bond UAB v Lietuvos bankas
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic money, financial institution, financial services, financial transaction, payment








C_2022482EN.01001201.xml










19.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 20 October 2022 — Bruc Bond UAB v Lietuvos bankas
(Case C-661/22)
(2022/C 482/17)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Bruc Bond UAB

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Lietuvos bankas

Question referred

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where a payment institution accepts funds without a specific payment order to transfer them on the same or following business day and the funds remain in the payment institution’s account intended for carrying out payment transactions for longer than the time limits for the execution of the payment service laid down by the legislation, are the actions of the payment institution to be regarded as:






(a)


a part of a payment service or a payment transaction, as defined in points 3 and 5 of Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, performed by the payment institution; or










(b)


the issuance of electronic money as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/110/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35).

(2)  Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (OJ 2009 L 267, p. 7).
Case C-825/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Asylum application — Rejection — Order to leave the territory — Article 6(4) — Application for leave to remain for the purpose of medical treatment — Admissible application — Issuance of temporary leave to remain while the application is being examined — Dismissal of application — Social assistance — Refusal — Condition relating to the legality of the stay — No return decision — Effect of temporary leave to remain on the order to leave the territory)
Date: 2022-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, asylum seeker, emergency medical treatment, foreign national, illegal migration, international protection, removal, residence permit, right of asylum, social assistance








C_2022472EN.01002301.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/23






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège
(Case C-825/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Asylum application - Rejection - Order to leave the territory - Article 6(4) - Application for leave to remain for the purpose of medical treatment - Admissible application - Issuance of temporary leave to remain while the application is being examined - Dismissal of application - Social assistance - Refusal - Condition relating to the legality of the stay - No return decision - Effect of temporary leave to remain on the order to leave the territory)
(2022/C 472/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UP

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals,
must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which, where a right to stay is granted to a third-country national staying illegally on its territory pending the outcome of the processing of an application for leave to remain for one of the reasons covered by that provision, on account of the admissibility of that application, the grant of that right entails the implicit withdrawal of a return decision previously adopted in respect of that national after the rejection of his or her application for international protection.


(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.