do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-753/21 and C-754/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21) and Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common foreign and security policy — Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 — Specific restrictions applicable to economic and financial relations with Iraq — Article 4 — Freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to the persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of the former President Saddam Hussein — Article 6 — Transfer to the successor arrangements of the Iraq Development Fund — Ownership of frozen funds and economic resources)
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iraq, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2023054EN.01001302.xml










13.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Instrubel NV v Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21) and Montana Management Inc. v Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21)
(Joined Cases C-753/21 and C-754/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common foreign and security policy - Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 - Specific restrictions applicable to economic and financial relations with Iraq - Article 4 - Freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to the persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of the former President Saddam Hussein - Article 6 - Transfer to the successor arrangements of the Iraq Development Fund - Ownership of frozen funds and economic resources)
(2023/C 54/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Instrubel NV (C-753/21), Montana Management Inc. (C-754/21)

Defendants: Montana Management Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-753/21), Heerema Zwijndrecht BV, BNP Paribas Securities Services (C-754/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) to (4) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96, as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 85/2013 of 31 January 2013,
must be interpreted as meaning that the frozen funds and economic resources remain, pending the decision to transfer them to the successor arrangements to the Development Fund for Iraq, the property of the natural and legal persons, bodies and entities associated with the regime of former President Saddam Hussein covered by the freezing.


(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.
Case C-764/22 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 05 October 2022 in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli SpA v Commission
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import (EU), originating product








C_2023045EN.01001402.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/14






Appeal brought on 15 December 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 05 October 2022 in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli SpA v Commission
(Case C-764/22 P)
(2023/C 45/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, avvocato, D. Rovetta, avocat, P. Gjørtler, advokat, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare admissible the present appeal;










—


Set aside the Order of the General Court of October 5, 2022, in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli Spa vs. European Commission and declares the action brought by Airoldi Metalli Spa admissible;










—


Send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli Spa’s action;










—


Order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the current Appeal, the Appellant relies on the two main grounds of appeals:
First ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures — Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.
Second ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’ — Wrong qualification of facts.
State aid – Decision recording the acceptance of appropriate measures pursuant to Article 1(1) of Part I and Article 19(1) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement proposed in the context of the adoption of new Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments 2022/C 476/09
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, EFTA countries, European Economic Area, State aid, control of State aid, financial risk, investment, investment aid








C_2022476EN.01003301.xml










15.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 476/33






State aid – Decision recording the acceptance of appropriate measures pursuant to Article 1(1) of Part I and Article 19(1) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement proposed in the context of the adoption of new Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments
(2022/C 476/09)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has proposed appropriate measures, which were accepted by all EFTA States, on the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


7 September 2022




Case No


86868




Decision No


177/22/COL




EFTA State


All




Title


Decision recording the acceptance of appropriate measures pursuant to Article 1(1) of Part I and Article 19(1) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement proposed in the context of the adoption of new Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments




Legal basis


EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26;
Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24 and Articles 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(b);
Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, in particular Article 1(1) of Part I and Article 19(1) of Part II




Type of measure


Decision recording the acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures




Objective


Ensuring that the EFTA States amend, where necessary, their existing risk finance aid schemes, in order to bring them into line with the new Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investment




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/
Case C-761/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V. v Roller GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU energy label, advertising, labelling, product designation








C_2023094EN.01002201.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V. v Roller GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-761/22)
(2023/C 94/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bochum

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verband Wirtschaft im Wettbewerb Verein für Lauterkeit in Handel und Industrie e.V.

Defendant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU directly impose an obligation on suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising, without specific expression being given to that standard by means of a delegated act?










2.








(a)


In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
Does an obligation, already to be assumed directly from Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU, for suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising result in suppliers or dealers being entitled to a certain amount of leeway regarding how that information is presented until the new delegated acts enter into force?










(b)


In the event that the answer to question [2](a) is in the affirmative:
Which possibility or possibilities of presenting the required information on energy efficiency class and range of energy efficiency classes in compliance with EU law are open to suppliers and dealers until the new delegated acts enter into force? Is the combination of energy efficiency class and colour design chosen by the defendant according to Annex K 1 to the statement of claim sufficient, if applicable?














3.


In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the negative:
Is the obligation for suppliers or dealers of products relevant to energy labelling to indicate the energy efficiency class and the range of energy efficiency classes in their advertising completely suspended until the new delegated acts enter into force?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).
Case C-88/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) — Decision 2007/533/JHA — Alert on an object sought — Article 38 — Objectives of the alert — Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings — Article 39 — Execution of the action based on an alert — Measures taken in accordance with the national law of the Member States — National legislation laying down an obligation to prohibit the registration of vehicles which are the subject of alerts in SIS II)
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Information System, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, motor vehicle, proof, seizure of goods, vehicle registration








C_2023054EN.01000801.xml










13.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai
(Case C-88/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Decision 2007/533/JHA - Alert on an object sought - Article 38 - Objectives of the alert - Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings - Article 39 - Execution of the action based on an alert - Measures taken in accordance with the national law of the Member States - National legislation laying down an obligation to prohibit the registration of vehicles which are the subject of alerts in SIS II)
(2023/C 54/08)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Regionų apygardos administracinio teismo Kauno rūmai

Intervener: Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), read in conjunction with Article 38(1) of that decision,
must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


it does not lay down any general obligation to prohibit the registration of a motor vehicle which is the subject of an ongoing alert in the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II);










—


it does not require the executing Member State to provide for general rules prohibiting actions relating to the object which has been located, other than those which enable the objectives of Article 38(1) of that decision to be achieved;










—


it does not preclude that Member State from providing for derogations from a general prohibition on registering such a vehicle.






(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Case C-577/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — LM, NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, fourth paragraph — Concept of ‘personal injury’ — Cover by compulsory insurance — Road traffic accident — Death of a passenger — Right to compensation for minor children — Non-material damage — Suffering of a child resulting from the death of his or her parent as a result of that accident — Compensation only in the event of pathological damage)
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: compulsory insurance, death, family, indemnification, insurance indemnity, mental health, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident, young person








C_2023054EN.01001301.xml










13.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/13






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — LM, NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG
(Case C-577/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, fourth paragraph - Concept of ‘personal injury’ - Cover by compulsory insurance - Road traffic accident - Death of a passenger - Right to compensation for minor children - Non-material damage - Suffering of a child resulting from the death of his or her parent as a result of that accident - Compensation only in the event of pathological damage)
(2023/C 54/14)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LM, NO

Defendant: HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes compensation, by an insurer against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, for non-material damage suffered by close family members of victims of road traffic accidents subject to the condition that that harm entailed pathological damage to the health of such close family members.


(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Case T-443/22: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — PV v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, appointment of members, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, public prosecutor's department, rights of the defence








C_2023063EN.01006803.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/68






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — PV v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
(Case T-443/22) (1)

(2023/C 63/88)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10853 – ISG / EEP / BSG) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 25/02
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, merger control








C_2023025EN.01000201.xml










24.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10853 – ISG / EEP / BSG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 25/02)
On 15 December 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10853. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-760/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Criminal proceedings against FP, QV, IN, YL, VD, JF and OL
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal law, criminal proceedings, lawyer, legal aid, legal hearing, rights of the defence, video communications








C_2023071EN.01001802.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 December 2022 — Criminal proceedings against FP, QV, IN, YL, VD, JF and OL
(Case C-760/22)
(2023/C 71/22)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Defendants

FP, QV, IN, YL, VD, JF and OL

Question referred

Is the right of a defendant to be present at his or her trial, as provided for in Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343, (1) read in conjunction with recitals 33 and 44 of that directive, infringed if, at his or her express request, he or she takes part in the court hearings being conducted in the criminal case in question via an online link, in a situation where he or she is defended by a lawyer mandated by him or her and present in the courtroom, and where that link enables him or her to follow the course of the proceedings and to adduce and be given access to evidence, where he or she can be heard without technical hindrances and he or she is guaranteed an effective and confidential means of conferring with his or her lawyer?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Case T-675/20: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Tendering procedure — Aerial surveillance service — Remotely piloted aircraft system — Refusal to grant access — Application of the two main parties for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate — No discontinuance or withdrawal — Sound administration of justice — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, award of contract, drone, maritime surveillance, tendering








C_2023063EN.01004701.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/47






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex
(Case T-675/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Tendering procedure - Aerial surveillance service - Remotely piloted aircraft system - Refusal to grant access - Application of the two main parties for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - No discontinuance or withdrawal - Sound administration of justice - No need to adjudicate)
(2023/C 63/60)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, T. Knäbe and W. Szmidt, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, the annulment of the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 5 October 2020, by which it rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Leonardo SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex).






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.