do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-174/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 260(2) TFEU — Obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with such a judgment — Failure to fulfil that obligation alleged by the European Commission — Lack of clarity of the letter of formal notice as to whether the judgment still had to be complied with on the reference date — Principle of legal certainty — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, atmospheric pollutant, environmental protection, environmental standard, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, principle of legal certainty, quality of the environment








C_2023164EN.01000502.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-174/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Article 260(2) TFEU - Obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with such a judgment - Failure to fulfil that obligation alleged by the European Commission - Lack of clarity of the letter of formal notice as to whether the judgment still had to be complied with on the reference date - Principle of legal certainty - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 164/06)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented initially by L. Zaharieva, T. Mitova and M. Georgieva, and finally by L. Zaharieva and T. Mitova, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


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










3.


Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Case C-161/23, Lireva Investments and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 16 March 2023 — VL, ZS, Lireva Investments Limited, VI, FORTRESS FINANCE Inc. v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
Date: 2023-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, constitutional court, criminal law, criminal proceedings, infringement of EU law, primacy of EU law, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2023189EN.01002001.xml










30.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 16 March 2023 — VL, ZS, Lireva Investments Limited, VI, FORTRESS FINANCE Inc. v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
(Case C-161/23, Lireva Investments and Others)
(2023/C 189/27)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants before the Satversmes tiesa: VL, ZS, Lireva Investments Limited, VI, FORTRESS FINANCE Inc.

Respondent: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred







1.


Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of that offence, and which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and of Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may national legislation concerning proof of the criminal source of assets in proceedings concerning illegally obtained assets, such as that established in the provisions at issue, be considered compatible with the right to a fair trial enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter and in Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42?










3.


Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained in relation to the period during which it was in force?






(1)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).
Case C-668/22: Order of the President of the Court of 16 March 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
Date: 2023-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air space, air traffic, air traffic control, data transmission, infringement of EU law, provision of services








C_2023271EN.01002102.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/21






Order of the President of the Court of 16 March 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
(Case C-668/22) (1)

(2023/C 271/30)
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 463, 5.12.2022.
Case C-522/21, Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltung (KWS Meridian): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken — Germany) — MS v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Protection of plant varieties — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Derogation provided for in Article 14(3) — Article 94(2) — Infringement — Right to compensation — Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 — Article 18(2) — Compensation for damage — Minimum lump sum calculated on the basis of quadruple the licence fee — Competence of the European Commission — Invalidity)
Date: 2023-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, derogation from EU law, intellectual property, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_2023164EN.01000902.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken — Germany) — MS v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
(Case C-522/21, (1) Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltung (KWS Meridian))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Protection of plant varieties - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Derogation provided for in Article 14(3) - Article 94(2) - Infringement - Right to compensation - Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 - Article 18(2) - Compensation for damage - Minimum lump sum calculated on the basis of quadruple the licence fee - Competence of the European Commission - Invalidity)
(2023/C 164/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Pfälzisches Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MS

Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998, is invalid.


(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.