do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-358/22, Bolloré logistics: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Bolloré logistics SA v Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 195 — Article 217(1) — Article 221(1) — Common Customs Tariff — Obligations on the part of the guarantor of the debtor of a customs debt — Procedures for the communication of the customs debt — Duty corresponding to that debt which has not been lawfully communicated to the debtor — Whether the customs debt is payable by the joint and several guarantor)
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs debt, guarantee








C_2023164EN.01001801.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/18






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Bolloré logistics SA v Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS
(Case C-358/22, (1) Bolloré logistics)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 195 - Article 217(1) - Article 221(1) - Common Customs Tariff - Obligations on the part of the guarantor of the debtor of a customs debt - Procedures for the communication of the customs debt - Duty corresponding to that debt which has not been lawfully communicated to the debtor - Whether the customs debt is payable by the joint and several guarantor)
(2023/C 164/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bolloré logistics SA

Defendants: Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 195, Article 217(1) and Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005,
must be interpreted as meaning that customs authorities may not demand payment of a customs debt from the guarantor referred to in Article 195 when the amount of duty has not been lawfully communicated to the debtor.


(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11050 – PAI PARTNERS / SAVORY SOLUTIONS GROUP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 87/15
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, consumer goods, economic concentration, food additive, food industry, health care, investment company, merger control, processed food product, provision of services, supplier








C_2023087EN.01004501.xml










9.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/45






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11050 – PAI PARTNERS / SAVORY SOLUTIONS GROUP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 87/15)

1.   
On 1 March 2023, 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:






—


PAI Partners (France),










—


International Flavors & Fragrances’ (‘IFF’, United States) business unit for savory solutions (‘Savoury Solutions Group’, United States).




PAI Partners will indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the Savory Solutions Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


PAI Partners is a European private equity firm which manages a number of funds investing world-wide in the business services, food & consumer products, general industrials and healthcare sectors,










—


Savory Solutions Group is a global supplier of savoury solutions such as flavour solutions and functional solutions to industrial food processors (processed meat, fish, seafood, plant-based food solutions), butchers, foodservice providers and suppliers of convenience food. It also produces colour ingredients, casings and cultures for savoury food.






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.



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.11050 – PAI PARTNERS / SAVORY SOLUTIONS GROUP
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
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-693/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Intermarché Casino Achats v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection — Remedies against the conduct of the inspection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19 — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Article 3 — Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations — Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, recording, restriction on competition, right to justice








C_2023155EN.01000401.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Intermarché Casino Achats v European Commission, Council of the European Union
(Case C-693/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Decision of the European Commission ordering an inspection - Remedies against the conduct of the inspection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19 - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Article 3 - Recording of interviews conducted by the Commission during its investigations - Starting point of the Commission’s investigation)
(2023/C 155/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Intermarché Casino Achats (represented by: F. Abouzeid, S. Eder, J. Jourdan, C. Mussi and Y. Utzschneider, Avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, A. Dawes and I. V. Rogalski, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-L. Meyer and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission (T-254/17, not published, EU:T:2020:459);










2.


Sets aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2020, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission (T-254/17, not published, EU:T:2020:459) in so far as it ruled on costs;










3.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 1056 final of 9 February 2017, ordering Intermarché Casino Achats and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1);










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Intermarché Casino Achats SARL, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings;










5.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs, both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case C-725/21, SOMEO: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheading 9401 90 80 — Parts of seats for motor vehicles — Net for making pockets in the rear part of seats — Protection for the inside of seats)
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading, vehicle parts








C_2023164EN.01001102.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/11






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A. v Republika Slovenija
(Case C-725/21, (1) SOMEO)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 9401 90 80 - Parts of seats for motor vehicles - Net for making pockets in the rear part of seats - Protection for the inside of seats)
(2023/C 164/15)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 9401 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parts’ of a seat of a motor vehicle does not cover goods which are not indispensable for such a seat to fulfil its function.


(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.
Case C-714/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Francoise Grossetête v European Parliament (Appeal — Law governing the institutions — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights — Plea of illegality — Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament — Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Legal certainty)
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, competence of the institution, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), supplementary pension








C_2023155EN.01002101.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/21






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — Francoise Grossetête v European Parliament
(Case C-714/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme - Individual decision fixing additional voluntary pension rights - Plea of illegality - Competence of the Bureau of the Parliament - Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Legal certainty)
(2023/C 155/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Francoise Grossetête (represented by: E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, F. Doumont, avocat, J. Martínez Gimeno and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker, N. Görlitz and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Ms Françoise Grossetête to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case T-128/23: Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, data protection, data-processing law, personal data, sanction (EU), social media








C_2023155EN.01007101.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/71






Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board
(Case T-128/23)
(2023/C 155/88)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, M. Braun and A. Vallery, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan and D. Breatnach, Solicitors, D. McGrath, E. Egan McGrath and H. Godfrey, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (EDPB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the EDPB’s Binding Decision 4/2022 on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Instagram service (Art. 65 GDPR) adopted on 5 December 2022, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts, and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65 GDPR.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 6(1)(b) GDPR by interpreting the concept of contractual necessity overly narrowly and applying this incorrect legal standard based on an incorrect interpretation of Meta Ireland’s Terms of Use.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the EDPB failed to act as an impartial body.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated Article 83 GDPR and various underlying principles governing the determination of fines under the GDPR.
Case C-50/22, Sogefinancement: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Sogefinancement v RW, UV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreements for consumers — Scope — Right of withdrawal — Article 14(7) — National provisions establishing a period of time during which the performance of the contract may not begin — National procedural rules governing how the national courts raise of their own motion and penalise breaches of those provisions — Article 23 — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions)
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2023164EN.01001601.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/16






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Sogefinancement v RW, UV
(Case C-50/22, (1) Sogefinancement)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Scope - Right of withdrawal - Article 14(7) - National provisions establishing a period of time during which the performance of the contract may not begin - National procedural rules governing how the national courts raise of their own motion and penalise breaches of those provisions - Article 23 - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions)
(2023/C 164/20)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sogefinancement

Defendant: RW, UV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(7) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC,
must be interpreted as meaning that the national procedural rules governing the raising by a national court of its own motion of, and the penalty it imposes for, a breach, by the lender, of a provision of national law establishing a period during which the performance of a credit agreement may not begin do not fall within the scope of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) 528/2012 in the first half of 2022 2023/C 87/09 Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Standing Committee of the EFTA States
Subjects: EFTA countries, European Economic Area, biocide, chemical product, chlorine, dangerous substance, insecticide, market approval, marketing standard, pesticide, pharmaceutical product








C_2023087EN.01003201.xml










9.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/32






Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) 528/2012 in the first half of 2022
(2023/C 87/09)
Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods
To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee
With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 225/2013 of 13 December 2013, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for the period 1 January – 30 June 2022, at their meeting on 28 October 2022.




ANNEX
List of authorisation decisions
The following authorisation decisions in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012) have been taken in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 January – 30 June 2022:








Biocidal Product Name


Union authorisation decisions under Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012


Country


Date of decision




Pesguard® Gel


32021R1044


Liechtenstein


14.7.2021 (1)





SchwabEX-Guard


32022R0114


Iceland


2.3.2022




SchwabEX-Guard


32022R0114


Liechtenstein


4.2.2022




SchwabEX-Guard


32022R0114


Norway


23.2.2022




ARIEL chlorine Professional System 5 chlorine bleach for white wash


32022R0527


Iceland


2.6.2022




ARIEL chlorine Professional System 5 chlorine bleach for white wash


32022R0527


Liechtenstein


30.5.2022




ARIEL chlorine Professional System 5 chlorine bleach for white wash


32022R0527


Norway


19.5.2022






(1)  Unintendedly omitted from the list of authorisation decisions 2nd half 2021.
Case C-46/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators v Aquind Ltd (Appeal — Energy — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Article 17 — Request for exemption relating to an electricity interconnector — Refusal decision from the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) — Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Article 19 — Board of Appeal of ACER — Intensity of the review)
Date: 2023-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, electrical energy, energy grid, energy transport, legal expenses








C_2023155EN.01000601.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 — European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators v Aquind Ltd
(Case C-46/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Article 17 - Request for exemption relating to an electricity interconnector - Refusal decision from the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) - Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 - Article 19 - Board of Appeal of ACER - Intensity of the review)
(2023/C 155/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents, and by B. Creve, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Aquind Ltd (represented by: J. Bille, C. Davis, S. Goldberg and E. White, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal;










2.


Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal;










3.


Orders the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal and to pay those incurred by Aquind Ltd;










4.


Orders the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and Aquind Ltd to bear their own costs relating to the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.