do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-706/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2022 — Konzernbetriebsrat der O SE & Co. KG
Date: 2022-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European company, head office, holding company, labour relations, registration of a company, subsidiary, transfer of businesses, wage earner








C_2023071EN.01001601.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2022 — Konzernbetriebsrat der O SE & Co. KG
(Case C-706/22)
(2023/C 71/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Konzernbetriebsrat der O SE & Co. KG

Intervener: Vorstand der O Holding SE

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001, (1) in conjunction with Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2001/86/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a holding SE is formed by participating companies which do not employ employees, and do not have subsidiaries employing employees, and the holding SE was registered in the register of a Member State (a so-called ‘SE without employees’) without a negotiation procedure for the involvement of employees in the SE having first been conducted, under that directive that negotiation procedure has to be conducted retrospectively if the SE becomes the controlling undertaking of subsidiaries in several Member States of the European Union which employ employees?










2.


If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
Is the retrospective conduct of the negotiation procedure in such a case possible and necessary for an unlimited time?










3.


If the Court’s answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
Does Article 6 of Directive 2001/86 preclude the application of the law of the Member State where the SE now has its registered office for the purpose of retrospective conduct of the negotiation procedure if the ‘SE without employees’ was registered in the register in another Member State without such a procedure having first been conducted and before the transfer of its registered office became the controlling company of subsidiaries in several Member States of the European Union which employ employees?










4.


If the Court’s answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:
Is this also the case where the State where that ‘SE without employees’ was first registered has withdrawn from the European Union after the transfer of the registered office and its law no longer contains any provisions on the conduct of a negotiation procedure for the involvement of employees in the SE?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE) (OJ 2001 L 294, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2001 L 294, p. 22).
Case C-710/22 P: Appeal brought on 17 November 2022 by JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission
Date: 2022-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, State aid, advertising, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2023015EN.01003101.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/31






Appeal brought on 17 November 2022 by JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission
(Case C-710/22 P)
(2023/C 15/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium (represented by: A. Winckler, M. Malanda, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Clear Channel Belgium

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 September 2022 in Case T-642/19, JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission;










—


grant the form of order sought by JCDecaux at first instance and annul Article 1 of Decision C(2019) 4466 of the European Commission of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité, in so far as it found that there was incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 to 4, in so far as they order the Belgian State to recover the aid from JCDecaux;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, JCDecaux submits that the General Court, in its judgment, adopted contradictory reasoning and erred in law in finding that the use by JCDecaux of certain advertising displays under the 1984 contract after their expiry date constituted an economic advantage, and distorted the facts in so far as it found that the advertising displays that were kept in place were covered by the 1999 contract on the basis of which ‘rent and taxes’ were due.
Joined Cases C-331/20 P and C-343/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Volotea SA (C-331/20 P), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (C-343/20 P) v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — European Commission decision on compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations — Existence of unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market, granted by the Italian Republic to airlines through airport operators — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Proof of the existence of an advantage — Determination of the amount — Market economy operator principle — Applicability and application — Test of the private acquirer of goods or services — Conditions — Burden of proof)
Date: 2022-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, airport, control of State aid, proof, reimbursement of aid, services of general interest








C_2023015EN.01000701.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/7






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Volotea SA (C-331/20 P), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (C-343/20 P) v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-331/20 P and C-343/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - European Commission decision on compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations - Existence of unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market, granted by the Italian Republic to airlines through airport operators - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Proof of the existence of an advantage - Determination of the amount - Market economy operator principle - Applicability and application - Test of the private acquirer of goods or services - Conditions - Burden of proof)
(2023/C 15/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Volotea SA (represented by M. Carpagnano, avvocato, and M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwalt), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (represented by A. Manzaneque Valverde and J. Rivas Andrés, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by D. Grespan, S. Noë, L. Armati and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020, Volotea v Commission (T-607/17, EU:T:2020:180);










2.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020, easyJet Airline v Commission (T-8/18, EU:T:2020:182), in so far as that court dismissed the action for annulment of easyJet Airline Co. Ltd as unfounded;










3.


Annuls European Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI), in so far as it concerns, first, Volotea SA, and, second, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd;










4.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs related to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings on appeal.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case C-373/22, NE: Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against NE
Date: 2022-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, charge, civil liability proceedings, criminal court, criminal proceedings, indemnification, independence of the judiciary, judicial reform, right to justice








C_2023104EN.01002202.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/22






Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against NE
(Case C-373/22, (1) NE)
(2023/C 104/33)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.
NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION 2022/C 437/03
Date: 2022-11-17
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: assistant, competition (EU), job vacancy, occupational safety, recruitment








C_2022437EN.01000301.xml










17.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/3






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2022/C 437/03)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AST/155/22 – Security and safety assistants (AST 3) in the following fields:







1.



Operational security











2.



Technical security











3.



Occupational health and safety





The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 437 A of 17 November 2022.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case C-569/21: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri v PF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners — Justification)
Date: 2022-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, police, professional qualifications, psychology, recruitment








C_2023015EN.01001902.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/19






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri v PF
(Case C-569/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of technical psychologist commissioners - Justification)
(2023/C 15/20)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Ministero dell’Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri

Respondent: PF

Operative part of the order

Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the fixing of a maximum age limit of 30 years for participation in a competition aimed at recruiting police psychologists.


(1)  Date lodged: 16.9.2021.