do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10931 – OPENTEXT / MICRO FOCUS) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 446/07
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, goods and services, information, management, merger control, software








C_2022446EN.01003101.xml










24.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 446/31






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10931 – OPENTEXT / MICRO FOCUS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 446/07)

1.   
On 14 November 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:






—


Open Text Corporation (‘OpenText’, Canada),










—


Micro Focus International plc (‘Micro Focus’, UK).




OpenText will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Micro Focus.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 25 August 2022.


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






—


OpenText is a provider of information management products and services,










—


Micro Focus is a provider of enterprise software.






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.10931 – OPENTEXT / MICRO FOCUS
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.
Case C-259/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) 2021/92 — Fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters — Conservation of fishery resources and protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures — Articles 15 to 17 and 20 and the second paragraph of Article 59 — Article 43(3) TFEU — Misuse of powers — Principle of sincere cooperation)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU waters, abuse of power, catch by species, catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, marine ecosystem, sea fishing








C_2023024EN.01000702.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/7






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-259/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) 2021/92 - Fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Conservation of fishery resources and protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures - Articles 15 to 17 and 20 and the second paragraph of Article 59 - Article 43(3) TFEU - Misuse of powers - Principle of sincere cooperation)
(2023/C 24/09)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Falek, F. Naert and A. Nowak-Salles, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Case C-724/22, Investcapital: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.° 2 de León (Spain) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Investcapital Ltd v G.H.R.
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, injunction, law of obligations, unfair terms of contract








C_2023121EN.01000301.xml










3.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 2 de León (Spain) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Investcapital Ltd v G.H.R.
(Case C-724/22, Investcapital)
(2023/C 121/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 2 de León

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Investcapital Ltd

Defendant: G.H.R.

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) preclude a court, when enforcing an instrument stemming from an order for payment procedure in which a review of unfair terms has already been carried out, from carrying out of its own motion a further review of unfair terms?
If not, does Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude the court from asking the party seeking enforcement to provide such information as may be necessary to determine the origin of the amount of the debt, including the principal and, as the case may be, any interest, contractual penalties and other sums, in order to review of its own motion whether those terms are unfair? Does Article 7 of that directive preclude national legislation which does not provide for the possibility of requesting such additional documents during the enforcement procedure?










2.


Does the principle of effectiveness of EU law preclude national procedural legislation which prevents or does not provide for a second review of unfair terms by the court of its own motion in the procedure for enforcing a procedural instrument stemming from an order for payment procedure, [if] it is considered that unfair terms may be present on account of an imperfect or incomplete review of unfairness in the prior procedure during which that enforceable instrument was issued?
If so, is the fact that the court may ask the party seeking enforcement to provide such documents as may be necessary to determine the heads of claim under the contract that make up the amount of the debt, in order to review whether any of the terms are unfair, consistent with the principle of effectiveness of EU law?






(1)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-731/22: Action brought on 24 November 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2023024EN.01006501.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/65






Action brought on 24 November 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council
(Case T-731/22)
(2023/C 24/90)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Andrey Anatolyevich Kozitsyn (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
and thereby










—


declare Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 to be unlawful and










—


disapply those provisions by way of a plea of illegality or, at the very least, declare that those provisions were illegally applied to Mr Kozitsyn;
in any event,










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).
Case C-721/22 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20, PB v Commission
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative measure, administrative sanction, company law, damages, debt, manager, private limited company, ruling








C_2023035EN.01003801.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/38






Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20, PB v Commission
(Case C-721/22 P)
(2023/C 35/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: PB, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the first and third paragraphs of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 14 September 2022 in Case T-775/20;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits in relation to the action for annulment; and










—


order PB to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a ground of annulment alleging an error of law.
The Commission disputes the finding of the General Court which considers, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that, on the basis of the reasoning in paragraphs 51 to 64 of that judgment, the PFI Regulation (1)‘cannot therefore constitute on its own the relevant legal basis for the purposes of adopting administrative measures seeking the recovery of amounts unduly paid. …’
The General Court errs in law because Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation constitute an autonomous and sufficiently precise basis to adopt administrative measures of recovery, which are not a penalty.
In paragraph 69 of its judgment, the General Court, lastly, concluded that the joint application of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002 and Articles 4 and 7 of the PFI Regulation did not permit the adoption of a measure vis-à-vis the applicant at first instance, in so far as he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments.
According to the Commission, the General Court errs in law because Article 7 of the PFI Regulation, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation and Article 103 of the Financial Regulation of 2002, constitutes a sufficiently clear and precise provision to allow recovery from the applicant at first instance, even though he was not the direct beneficiary of the payments at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
Case C-691/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 85/374/EEC — Article 3 — Liability for defective products — Meaning of ‘producer’ — Operator of an electricity distribution network changing the electricity voltage level for distribution)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: defective product, electricity supply, energy distribution, producer's liability








C_2023024EN.01001301.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/13






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA
(Case C-691/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 3 - Liability for defective products - Meaning of ‘producer’ - Operator of an electricity distribution network changing the electricity voltage level for distribution)
(2023/C 24/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA

Defendant: Enedis SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999,
must be interpreted as meaning that an electricity distribution system operator must be regarded as a ‘producer’, within the meaning of that provision, where it changes the voltage level of electricity with a view to its distribution to the final customer.


(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.
Case C-458/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CIG Pannónia Életbiztosító Nyrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(c) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Service used by an insurance company to review the accuracy of a diagnosis of serious illness and find and provide the best possible care and treatment abroad)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, health care, illness, insurance company, insurance contract, medical diagnosis, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2023024EN.01001101.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/11






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CIG Pannónia Életbiztosító Nyrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-458/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(c) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Service used by an insurance company to review the accuracy of a diagnosis of serious illness and find and provide the best possible care and treatment abroad)
(2023/C 24/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CIG Pannónia Életbiztosító Nyrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
must be interpreted as meaning that services consisting in verifying the accuracy of an insured person’s diagnosis of serious illness, in order to determine the best possible health care with a view to the insured person’s recovery and to ensure, where that risk is covered by the insurance contract and where the insured person so requests, that the medical treatment is provided abroad, are not covered by the exemption provided for in that provision.


(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case C-90/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — Vincent Thunus and Others v European Investment Bank (EIB) (Appeal — Civil service — Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) — Remuneration — Annual salary adjustment — Action for annulment and damages)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: pay, pay rise, servant (EU), wage determination








C_2023024EN.01000601.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/6






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — Vincent Thunus and Others v European Investment Bank (EIB)
(Case C-90/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Action for annulment and damages)
(2023/C 24/06)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: A. V. García Sanchez, T. Gilliams, J. Klein and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and by P.–E. Partsch, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case C-358/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Tilman SA v Unilever Supply Chain Company AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Jurisdiction clause — Formal requirements — Clause included in the general terms and conditions — General terms and conditions which may be viewed and printed from a hypertext link mentioned in a contract concluded in writing — Consent of the parties)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, contract terms, hypertext, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2023024EN.01001001.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/10






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Tilman SA v Unilever Supply Chain Company AG
(Case C-358/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Jurisdiction clause - Formal requirements - Clause included in the general terms and conditions - General terms and conditions which may be viewed and printed from a hypertext link mentioned in a contract concluded in writing - Consent of the parties)
(2023/C 24/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Tilman SA

Respondent: Unilever Supply Chain Company AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) and (2) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008,
must be interpreted as meaning that
a jurisdiction clause is validly concluded where it is contained in the general terms and conditions to which the contract concluded in writing refers by the inclusion of a hypertext link to a website, access to which allows those general terms and conditions to be viewed, downloaded and printed prior to that contract being signed, without the party against whom that clause operates having been formally asked to accept those general terms and conditions by ticking a box on that website.


(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Case C-166/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Directive 92/83/EEC — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty — Ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines — Article 27(1)(d) — Exemption conditional on placing the alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement — No facility to obtain a refund of the excise duty paid — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: ethanol, excise duty, infringement of EU law, pharmaceutical product, principle of proportionality, tax exemption








C_2023024EN.01000701.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-166/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Directive 92/83/EEC - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines - Article 27(1)(d) - Exemption conditional on placing the alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement - No facility to obtain a refund of the excise duty paid - Principle of proportionality)
(2023/C 24/08)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Perrin and M. Siekierzyńska, and subsequently by C. Perrin and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: O. Serdula, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.