do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-292/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — UC Rusal v Council
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2023252EN.01007301.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/73






Action brought on 25 May 2023 — UC Rusal v Council
(Case T-292/23)
(2023/C 252/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Company Rusal MKPAO (UC Rusal) (Kaliningrad, Russia) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) and (2) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation amending or annulling these acts, in so far as they identify the Applicant as being owned by Mr Deripaska;










—


order the Council to pay 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 for including the applicant’s name in the Statement of Reasons of a person subject to restrictive measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing as the applicant was not provided with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to an effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate and infringe the applicant’s rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11058 – ALTOR / MARLIN / MELTWATER) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 194/01
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, investment company, mass media, merger control, provision of services, social media, strategic intelligence








C_2023194EN.01000101.xml










2.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11058 – ALTOR / MARLIN / MELTWATER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 194/01)
On 25 May 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 English 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 32023M11058. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-295/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — WU v Eurojust
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, conflict of interest, damages, disciplinary proceedings, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2023252EN.01007501.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/75






Action brought on 25 May 2023 — WU v Eurojust
(Case T-295/23)
(2023/C 252/90)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: WU (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare and order,






—


the decision of 15 July 2022 of the Executive Board No [confidential] (1) to be annulled;










—


the applicant to be compensated ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 5 000 for the damage caused by the illegalities complained of, inadequately covered by the annulment of the decision adversely affecting him;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) through the unlawful replication of the procedures and of the authorities empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘AECE’) for the treatment of the request for assistance of the applicant, that rendered the file unnecessarily complex with the examination of the second request being largely disregarded resulting in the distortion of the context.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the replication of the AECE and infringement of the principle of impartiality, at least objectively. The applicant raises a conflict of interest and being deprived of the right to a second administrative review of his file that would be neutral.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error in law on the part of the AECE where it only considered the request for assistance of the applicant under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, without assessing it under Article 12, which lead to a manifest error of assessment as regards the existence of inappropriate behaviour with respect to the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner, on the ground that the applicant was not provided with all the factors upon which the investigators based their administrative investigation report or on the basis of which the AECE adopted its decision, at least in a timely manner, infringing the right to a fair trial.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance in that the defendant did not adopt appropriate measures during the inquiry in breach of a reasonable period of time.






(1)  Confidential information redacted.
Case C-330/23, Aldi Süd: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e.V. v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. OHG
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, discount sale, publishing of prices, reduced price, sales promotion, selling price, unit price








C_2023338EN.01000701.xml










25.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 May 2023 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e.V. v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. OHG
(Case C-330/23, Aldi Süd)
(2023/C 338/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e.V.

Defendant: Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. OHG

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 6a(1) and (2) of the Price Indication Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a percentage mentioned in an announcement of a price reduction may relate only to the prior price within the meaning of Article 6a(2) of the Price Indication Directive?










2.


Is Article 6a(1) and (2) of the Price Indication Directive to be interpreted as meaning that emphasis in advertising which is intended to stress the reasonable price of an offer (such as the description of the price as a ‘Price Highlight’), where it is used in an announcement of a price reduction, must relate to the prior price within the meaning of Article 6a(2) of the Price Indication Directive?






(1)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27), last amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ 2019 L 328, p. 7).
Case C-141/22, TLL The Longevity Labs: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Novel food — Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 — Sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content — Germination of buckwheat seeds in a nutrient solution containing spermidine)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: buckwheat, cereal flour, food inspection, food safety, novel food, organic chemical








C_2023252EN.01000901.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/9






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH v Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM
(Case C-141/22, (1) TLL The Longevity Labs)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Novel food - Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 - Sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content - Germination of buckwheat seeds in a nutrient solution containing spermidine)
(2023/C 252/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TLL The Longevity Labs GmbH

Defendant: Optimize Health Solutions mi GmbH, BM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001
must be interpreted as meaning that a food, such as sprouted buckwheat flour with a high spermidine content, which was not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the European Union before 15 May 1997, constitutes a ‘novel food’ within the meaning of that provision given that, first, it is obtained from a plant, secondly, it is not apparent that its safety has been confirmed with compositional data and from experience of continued use for at least 25 years in the customary diet of a significant number of people in at least one country of the European Union, and, thirdly and in any event, it is not obtained by propagating practices, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures 2023/C 183/02
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Argentina, biofuel, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product








C_2023183EN.01000201.xml










25.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/2






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
(2023/C 183/02)

1.   

As provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.


2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.








4.


This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Biodiesel


Argentina


Countervailing duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/244 of 11 February 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina (OJ L 40, 12.2.2019, p. 1)


13.2.2024










(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column
Case C-323/23, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — DS v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, family migration, migrant worker, residence, residence permit, social assistance, social-security benefit, unemployed person








C_2023271EN.01001602.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 May 2023 — DS v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
(Case C-323/23, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt)
(2023/C 271/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DS

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Question referred

Is Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC, (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an economically inactive [Union citizen] may not be a burden on the social assistance system within the meaning of that directive, if he resides in the host Member State for more than three months, but for less than five years, and derives his right of residence only from his capacity as the spouse (Article 2(2)(a) of the [directive]) of a … Union citizen employed in the host Member State (migrant worker) (Article 7(1)(d) of the [directive]), but does not himself have an original right of residence under Article 7(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Directive?


(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).