do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-567/22: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2023 — ATPN v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 — Nuclear energy — Sustainable activity — Association — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU environmental policy, climate change policy, disclosure of information, economic activity, economic instrument for the environment, financial institution, financial market, insurance company, investment, technical specification








C_2023179EN.01004801.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/48






Order of the General Court of 30 March 2023 — ATPN v Commission
(Case T-567/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 - Nuclear energy - Sustainable activity - Association - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 179/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, A. Nijenhuis and C. Auvret, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene lodged by the French Republic.










3.


The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The French Republic shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2515 of 15 December 2022 on the granting of unlimited duty-free access to the Union for 2023 to certain goods originating in Norway resulting from the processing of agricultural products covered by Regulation (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Official Journal of the European Union L 326 of 21 December 2022)
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, import (EU), non-alcoholic beverage, originating product, tariff quota








L_2023092EN.01002701.xml










30.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 92/27







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2515 of 15 December 2022 on the granting of unlimited duty-free access to the Union for 2023 to certain goods originating in Norway resulting from the processing of agricultural products covered by Regulation (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 326 of 21 December 2022
)


On page 12, in the Annex, in the column titled ‘Description of goods’, in the row corresponding to CN Code ‘ex 2202 99 15’:
for:


                  ‘Soya-based beverages with a protein content of less than 2,8 % by weight; beverages based on nuts of Chapter 8 of the Union Customs Code, cereals of Chapter 10 of the Union Customs Code or seeds of Chapter 12 of the Union Customs Code containing sugar (sucrose or invert sugar)’,

read:


                  ‘Soya-based beverages with a protein content of less than 2,8 % by weight; beverages based on nuts of Chapter 8 of the Common Customs Tariff, cereals of Chapter 10 of the Common Customs Tariff or seeds of Chapter 12 of the Common Customs Tariff containing sugar (sucrose or invert sugar)’.
Case T-171/23: Action brought on 30 March 2023 — VR v Parliament
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, termination of employment








C_2023173EN.01004101.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/41






Action brought on 30 March 2023 — VR v Parliament
(Case T-171/23)
(2023/C 173/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VR (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




and consequently,






—


annul the decision of 9 June 2022 notifying the applicant that his contract would be terminated and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 20 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 9 June 2022;










—


order the defendant to make good the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds for the decision and breach of the principle of proportionality.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more specifically, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons, compliance with the requirement of impartiality on the part of the administration and the duty of diligence.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.
Case C-208/23, Martiesta: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 March 2023 — AX
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, child, child protection, custody, extradition, family protection, family relationship, motherhood








C_2023189EN.01002501.xml










30.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 March 2023 — AX
(Case C-208/23, Martiesta (1))
(2023/C 189/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: AX

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1(2) and (3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant (2) be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority must refuse or, in any event, defer the surrender of a pregnant woman or a mother who has minor children living with her?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Article 1(2) and (3) and Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with Articles 3, 7, 4, 24 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, taking account also the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, in so far as they require the surrender of the pregnant woman or the mother, thus severing ties with the minor children living with her without considering the ‘best interest of the child’?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-343/22, PT (Order for payment under Swiss law): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Lugano II Convention — Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments — Article 34(2) — Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin — Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law)
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, civil proceedings, claim, debt, injunction, private international law








C_2023179EN.01000802.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB
(Case C-343/22, (1) PT (Order for payment under Swiss law))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Lugano II Convention - Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments - Article 34(2) - Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin - Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law)
(2023/C 179/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PT

Defendant: VB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(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 the statement of claim in an action for repayment under Swiss law, which was brought after a Swiss order for payment had been issued previously and which did not include an application for dismissal of the objection lodged against that order for payment, constitutes the document which instituted the proceedings, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11023 – ADP / JCDECAUX / MEDIA AEROPORTS DE PARIS JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 130/03
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, Jordan, Türkiye, advertising, airport, civil aviation, economic concentration, merger control








C_2023130EN.01000301.xml










14.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11023 – ADP / JCDECAUX / MEDIA AEROPORTS DE PARIS JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 130/03)
On 30 March 2023, 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 French 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 32023M11023. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10917 – SCHÜCO / METALLINVEST / RSFB / AWB) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 115/08
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: alloy, aluminium, building industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry, plastics, steel








C_2023115EN.01002501.xml










30.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 115/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10917 – SCHÜCO / METALLINVEST / RSFB / AWB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 115/08)

1.   
On 22 March 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Schüco International KG (‘Schüco’, Germany), part oft he Otto Fuchs Beteiligungen KG (‘Otto Fuchs’, Germany),










—


Metallinvest Holding GmbH (‘Metallinvest’, Austria),










—


RSFB Technologie Ges mbH, (‘RSFB’, Austria),










—


AWB Aluminiumwerk Berlin GmbH (‘AWB’, Germany).




Schüco, Metallinvest and RSFB will acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of AWB.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


Schüco is active in the development, manufacturing, and sale of building systems for facades made of aluminium, steel and plastic,










—


Metallinvest acquires and manages holdings in other companies, particularly those in the metal industry,










—


RSFB operates solely as a holding company,










—


AWB is active in extrusions of aluminium soft alloys.






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.10917 – SCHÜCO / METALLINVEST / RSFB / AWB
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-651/21, M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Measures relating to the law on succession — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 13 — Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence — Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State)
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, principle of legal certainty, residence








C_2023179EN.01000602.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/6






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M.
(Case C-651/21, (1) M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Measures relating to the law on succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 13 - Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence - Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State)
(2023/C 179/08)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M. Ya. M.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession,
must be interpreted as not precluding, after an heir has already had registered with a court of the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident his or her declaration of acceptance or of waiver of the succession of a deceased person whose habitual residence was, at the time of his or her death, in another Member State, another heir from applying for a subsequent registration of that declaration with the court of the latter Member State having jurisdiction.


(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case C-556/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 27 — Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker — Article 29 — Transfer time limit — Suspension of that time limit on appeal — Interim measure requested by the authorities)
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, asylum seeker, foreign national, higher court, removal, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2023179EN.01000302.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/3






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y.
(Case C-556/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker - Article 29 - Transfer time limit - Suspension of that time limit on appeal - Interim measure requested by the authorities)
(2023/C 179/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: E.N., S.S., J.Y.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 27(3) of that regulation,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a national court or tribunal hearing an appeal at second instance against a judgment annulling a transfer decision to adopt, on the application of the competent authorities, an interim measure enabling those authorities to refrain from taking a fresh decision pending the outcome of that appeal and having the object or effect of suspending the running of the transfer time limit until that outcome, provided that such a measure may be adopted only where the implementation of the transfer decision has been suspended pursuant to Article 27(3) or (4) of that regulation during the examination of the appeal at first instance.


(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case C-616/21, Gmina L.: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supply of services for consideration — Article 9(1) — Meanings of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ — Municipality which arranges for asbestos removal for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish for that — Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 40 % to 100 % of the costs — Article 13(1) — Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, asbestos, building safety, economic activity, financial aid, municipality, provision of services, public authorities, taxpayer, waste management








C_2023179EN.01000501.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L.
(Case C-616/21, (1) Gmina L.)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supply of services for consideration - Article 9(1) - Meanings of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ - Municipality which arranges for asbestos removal for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed the wish for that - Reimbursement of the municipality by a subsidy from the competent provincial authority of 40 % to 100 % of the costs - Article 13(1) - Municipalities not subject to tax for the activities or transactions carried out as public authorities)
(2023/C 179/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina L.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), Article 9(1) and Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
must be interpreted as meaning that where a municipality has arranged by means of an undertaking to carry out transactions involving asbestos removal and collection of asbestos products and waste, for the benefit of its residents who own immovable property and who have expressed interest in that regard, where such an activity is not intended to obtain income on a continuing basis and does not give rise, on the part of those residents, to any payment, since those transactions are financed by public funds, does not constitute a supply of services subject to value added tax.


(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.