do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-692/21: Order of the General Court of 22 December 2022 — AL v Commission (Civil service — OLAF investigation — Acts adopted by OLAF — Identification of the defendant — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification








C_2023071EN.01003001.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/30






Order of the General Court of 22 December 2022 — AL v Commission
(Case T-692/21) (1)

(Civil service - OLAF investigation - Acts adopted by OLAF - Identification of the defendant - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 71/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr, J. Baquero Cruz and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of (i) various acts adopted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the context of an investigation concerning him and by which OLAF rejected, inter alia, two complaints lodged by him against the final report and recommendations made in that investigation, (ii) the European Commission’s note of 3 March 2021 by which the Commission had informed him of its intention to recover certain allowances that had been paid to him, (iii) the Commission decision of 22 March 2021 by which it decided to recover those allowances, (iv) the Council of the European Union’s internal note of 22 January 2021 recommending the opening of disciplinary proceedings against him and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage that he claims to have suffered as a consequence of the recovery of various sums from his salary during 2021 and of the alleged illegal conduct of the OLAF investigation concerning him and its ensuing consequences.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the Council of the European Union.










3.


AL shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case C-288/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Tempus IV Programmes — Grant agreements Ecesis, Diusas and Deque — Systemic and recurrent irregularities — Request for full repayment of the amounts paid — Right to be heard — Principle of proportionality — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Application to reopen the oral part of the procedure at first instance — Article 113(2)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, eligibility criteria, financial aid, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, rights of the defence, university








C_2023063EN.01000301.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/3






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
(Case C-288/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Tempus IV Programmes - Grant agreements Ecesis, Diusas and Deque - Systemic and recurrent irregularities - Request for full repayment of the amounts paid - Right to be heard - Principle of proportionality - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Application to reopen the oral part of the procedure at first instance - Article 113(2)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
(2023/C 63/04)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Universität Koblenz-Landau (represented by: R. Di Prato and C. von der Lühe, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and N. Sbrilli, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout, advocaat, and C. Wagner, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Universität Koblenz-Landau to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case C-115/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament (Appeal — Institutional law — Members of the European Parliament — Loss of eligibility following a criminal conviction — Declaration that the seat of a Member of the European Parliament is vacant — Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, incompatibility, parliamentary immunity, penalty, right to stand for election








C_2023054EN.01000802.xml










13.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/8






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament
(Case C-115/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Members of the European Parliament - Loss of eligibility following a criminal conviction - Declaration that the seat of a Member of the European Parliament is vacant - Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 54/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret and A. Van den Eynde Adroer, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Case C-392/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — TJ v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 90/270/EEC — Article 9(3) — Work with display screen equipment — Protection of workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances — Spectacles — Acquisition by the employee — Arrangements for the employer to meet the costs)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, optical industry, protective equipment








C_2023063EN.01000601.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/6






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — TJ v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări
(Case C-392/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 90/270/EEC - Article 9(3) - Work with display screen equipment - Protection of workers’ eyes and eyesight - Special corrective appliances - Spectacles - Acquisition by the employee - Arrangements for the employer to meet the costs)
(2023/C 63/07)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: TJ

Respondent: Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 9(3) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 87/391/EEC)
must be interpreted as meaning that ‘special corrective appliances’ provided for in that provision include spectacles aimed specifically at the correction and prevention of visual difficulties relating to work involving display screen equipment. Moreover, those ‘special corrective appliances’ are not limited to appliances used exclusively for professional purposes.










2.


Article 9(3) and (4) of Directive 90/270
must be interpreted as meaning that the employer’s obligation, laid down in that provision, to provide the workers concerned with a special corrective appliance, may be met by the direct provision of the appliance to the worker by the employer or by reimbursement of the necessary expenses incurred by the worker, but not by the payment of a general salary supplement to the worker.






(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Corrigendum to Joint statement of the European Parliament and the Council in relation to Regulation (EU) 2022/2379, as regards the importance of establishing in all Member States a register held by national competent authorities on the use of plant protection products in agriculture (Official Journal of the European Union C 466 of 7 December 2022) 2022/C 487/09
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU statistics, agricultural statistics, common agricultural policy, data collection, exchange of information, pesticide residue, plant health legislation, plant health product, sustainable agriculture, utilised agricultural area








C_2022487EN.01001401.xml










22.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 487/14






Corrigendum to Joint statement of the European Parliament and the Council in relation to Regulation (EU) 2022/2379, as regards the importance of establishing in all Member States a register held by national competent authorities on the use of plant protection products in agriculture

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 466 of 7 December 2022
)

(2022/C 487/09)
On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 21, in the heading:
for:

‘Council’,

read:

‘European Parliament
Council’.
Case T-830/22: Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Poland v European Commission
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: claim, disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to justice, sanction (EU), separation of powers








C_2023063EN.01006402.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/64






Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Poland v European Commission
(Case T-830/22)
(2023/C 63/82)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the European Commission contained in the letters of 12 October 2022 (1) and 23 November 2022 (2) concerning the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2021 (Commission v Poland, C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878) with regard to the period from 15 July 2022 to 29 August 2022;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (3) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, in that the procedure for recovery by offsetting of the amounts receivable was applied, whereas the order of 27 October 2021 had imposed daily penalty payments for the period until the date of compliance with the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 14 July 2021 (4) and the provisions whose application was required to be suspended by the order of 14 July 2021 had ceased to apply on 15 July 2022.


(1)  Letter from the European Commission of 12 October 2022, Ref. ARES(2022)7041596.

(2)  Letter from the European Commission of 23 November 2022, Ref. ARES(2022)8087579.

(3)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

(4)  Order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland, C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593.
Case C-204/22: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — Úrad pre dohľad nad zdravotnou starostlivosťou, Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 267 TFEU — Concept of a ‘court or tribunal’ — Criteria relating to the constitution and function of that body — Exercise of judicial or administrative functions — Duty of cooperation of the body making the reference — Directives 89/665/EEC and 2014/24/EU — Public procurement — National regulatory body for public procurement procedures — Entitlement to act on an ex officio basis — Power to impose penalties — Decisions that are open to challenge before the courts — No dispute before the referring body — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, health insurance, insurance company, public procurement, services contract, transport of patients








C_2023063EN.01001101.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/11






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — Úrad pre dohľad nad zdravotnou starostlivosťou, Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s.
(Case C-204/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of a ‘court or tribunal’ - Criteria relating to the constitution and function of that body - Exercise of judicial or administrative functions - Duty of cooperation of the body making the reference - Directives 89/665/EEC and 2014/24/EU - Public procurement - National regulatory body for public procurement procedures - Entitlement to act on an ex officio basis - Power to impose penalties - Decisions that are open to challenge before the courts - No dispute before the referring body - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(2023/C 63/14)
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

Parties to the main proceedings


Proceedings brought against: Úrad pre dohľad nad zdravotnou starostlivosťou, Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, Slovakia), by decision of 16 March 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  Date lodged: 16.3.2022.
Case C-553/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg v Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Fourth indent of Article 5 — Differentiated rates of excise duty according to whether those products are for business or non-business use — Optional tax exemptions and reductions — Submission of an application for an optional tax reduction after the expiry of the period prescribed for that purpose but before the expiry of the period for assessment of the tax concerned — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental tax, excise duty, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, tax collection, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2023063EN.01000701.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/7






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg v Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH
(Case C-553/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Fourth indent of Article 5 - Differentiated rates of excise duty according to whether those products are for business or non-business use - Optional tax exemptions and reductions - Submission of an application for an optional tax reduction after the expiry of the period prescribed for that purpose but before the expiry of the period for assessment of the tax concerned - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of proportionality)
(2023/C 63/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness and the principle of proportionality, as a general principle of EU law, must be interpreted, in the context of implementing a provision such as that in the fourth indent of Article 5 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — which allows Member States to apply, under certain conditions, differentiated rates of taxation between business and non-business use, for energy products and electricity referred to in that directive — as precluding national legislation under which the competent authorities of a Member State are required to reject, automatically and without exception, an application for tax relief lodged within the period for assessment of the tax at issue as laid down in national law, on the sole ground that the applicant failed to comply with the period prescribed by that law for the submission of such an application.


(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the amendment of Annexes 10-A and 10-B of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: South Korea, agricultural product, alcoholic beverage, designation of origin, fishery product, foodstuff, free-trade agreement, product designation, revision of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_2022328EN.01006301.xml










22.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 328/63







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the amendment of Annexes 10-A and 10-B of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea

The amendment of Annexes 10-A and 10-B of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea (1), signed in Brussels on 6 October 2010, enters into force on 1 January 2023.


(1)  
            OJ L 127, 14.5.2011, p. 6.
Case T-827/22: Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, indemnification, principle of proportionality








C_2023104EN.01003601.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/36






Action brought on 22 December 2022 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission
(Case T-827/22)
(2023/C 104/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 29 April 2022 on State Aid SA.63360 (2021/N) — Romania COVID-19 — TAROM — damage compensation II (1); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.






(1)  
            OJ 2022, C 378, p. 2.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008, on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2022/2400 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants (Official Journal of the European Union L 317 of 9 December 2022)
Date: 2022-12-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: dangerous substance, environmental protection, international convention, market approval, organic chemical, organic pollution, pollution control measures, protocol to an agreement, public health, waste management








L_2022328EN.01016901.xml










22.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 328/169







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2022/2400 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 317 of 9 December 2022
)


On page 29, in the Annex, point (1)(c), fourth column of the table, point (a):
for:






‘(a)


until 29 December 2027, 500 mg/kg;’,




read:






‘(a)


until 29 December 2025, 500 mg/kg;’;




on page 29, in the Annex, point (1)(c), fourth column of the table, point (b):
for:






‘(b)


from 30 December 2025 until 28 December 2027, 350 mg/kg, or, if higher, the sum of the concentration of those substances where they are present in mixtures or articles, as set out in the fourth column, point 2, of Annex I for the substances tetrabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether, hexabromodiphenyl ether, heptabromodiphenyl ether and decabromodiphenyl ether;’,




read:






‘(b)


from 30 December 2025 until 29 December 2027, 350 mg/kg, or, if higher, the sum of the concentration of those substances where they are present in mixtures or articles, as set out in the fourth column, point 2, of Annex I for the substances tetrabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether, hexabromodiphenyl ether, heptabromodiphenyl ether and decabromodiphenyl ether;’.