do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-7/22 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — RQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Actions for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Private sector involvement — Damage caused by a reduction in the nominal value of newly issued State bonds compared with the value of cancelled bonds — Statements by the heads of State or Government of the euro zone and the institutions of the European Union — Decisions of the Euro Group — Informal and intergovernmental nature of the Euro Group — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Possibility of attributing damage)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Euro Group (euro area), Greece, bond, damages, financial loss, private sector, redemption of public debt








C_2023296EN.01000701.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — RQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-7/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Actions for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Private sector involvement - Damage caused by a reduction in the nominal value of newly issued State bonds compared with the value of cancelled bonds - Statements by the heads of State or Government of the euro zone and the institutions of the European Union - Decisions of the Euro Group - Informal and intergovernmental nature of the Euro Group - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Possibility of attributing damage)
(2023/C 296/06)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: RQ (represented by: M. Meng-Papantoni and H. Tagaras, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Bauerschmidt, K. Pavlaki and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: T. Adamopoulos and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders RQ to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.
Case C-419/23, Nemzeti Földügyi Központ: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 July 2023 — CN v Nemzeti Földügyi Központ
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, land register, legality, usufruct








C_202300013EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/13


9.10.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 July 2023 — CN v Nemzeti Földügyi Központ
(Case C-419/23, Nemzeti Földügyi Központ)
(C/2023/13)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CN

Defendant: Nemzeti Földügyi Központ

Intervener: GW

Question referred

Must Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State that, on reinstatement of a usufruct right, ordered following proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — subsequent to the deletion of a usufruct right whose registration was unlawful but final –, does not provide for a mandatory examination of whether the usufruct right was registered lawfully?


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/13/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-417/23, Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, XM, ZQ, FZ, DL, WS, JI, PB, VT, YB, TJ, RK v MV, EH, LI, AQ, LO, Social-, Bolig- og Ældreministeriet
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, integration of migrants, migrant, social security legislation, subsidised housing








C_2023338EN.01001102.xml










25.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, XM, ZQ, FZ, DL, WS, JI, PB, VT, YB, TJ, RK v MV, EH, LI, AQ, LO, Social-, Bolig- og Ældreministeriet
(Case C-417/23, Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge)
(2023/C 338/16)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, XM, ZQ, FZ, DL, WS, JI, PB, VT, YB, TJ, RK

Defendants: MV, EH, LI, AQ, LO, Social-, Bolig- og Ældreministeriet

Questions referred







1.


Must the term ‘ethnic origin’ in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/43 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that term, in circumstances such as those in the present case — where, under the Danish Law on social housing, there must be a reduction in the proportion of social family housing in ‘transformation areas’, and where it is a condition for categorisation as a transformation area that more than 50 % of residents in a housing area are ‘immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries’ — covers a group of persons defined as ‘immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries’?










2.


If the answer to the first question is wholly or partly in the affirmative, must Article 2(2)(a) and (b) be interpreted as meaning that the scheme described in this case constitutes direct or indirect discrimination?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).
Case C-285/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Action for annulment — Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part — Decision (EU) 2021/689 — National of the United Kingdom with family and property interests in the European Union — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Conditions — Interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, cooperation agreement (EU), national, right of action, trade agreement (EU)








C_2023296EN.01001001.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/10






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union
(Case C-285/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part - Decision (EU) 2021/689 - National of the United Kingdom with family and property interests in the European Union - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Conditions - Interest in bringing proceedings)
(2023/C 296/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Michaël Julien (represented by: J. Fouchet and J.-N. Caubet-Hilloutou, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Michaël Julien to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.
Case C-414/23, Metsä Fibre: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Metsä Fibre Oy
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, industrial pollution, ownership, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2023338EN.01001101.xml










25.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Metsä Fibre Oy
(Case C-414/23, Metsä Fibre)
(2023/C 338/15)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Metsä Fibre Oy

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Articles 70 and 40 of the Commission Registry Regulation (1) regarding the timeframes for reversal of transactions and the final and irrevocable nature of transactions invalid when the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the other rights protected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are taken into account, in as much as the provisions at issue prevent the retransfer of the allowances to Metsä Fibre Oy in a situation where the surrender of excessive allowances to the Union Registry was based on the application of the provisions which were found in the Schaefer Kalk judgment (2) to be invalid, and the company cannot use the positive compliance status of the compliance account because of the current low level of emissions from the Äänekoski installation?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative, are the provisions of Articles 70 and 40 of the Commission Registry Regulation at all applicable in a situation where the surrender of excessive allowances to the Union Registry was based on application of the provisions which were found in the Schaefer Kalk judgment to be invalid and not on a transaction unintentionally or erroneously initiated by an account holder or a national administrator acting on behalf of the account holder?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is there any other way made possible by EU law to put Metsä Fibre Oy in the position, with respect to use of the allowances, in which it would have been if the provisions which were found in the Schaefer Kalk judgment to be invalid had not existed and the company had not surrendered excessive allowances on the basis of them?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013 L 122, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 19 January 2017, Schaefer Kalk (C-460/15, EU:C:2017:29).
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1622 of 17 May 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on emerging markets and advanced economies (Official Journal of the European Union OJ L 244 of 21 September 2022)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, economy, financial legislation, financial risk, financial supervision, private-sector liquidity, technical standard




L_2023171EN.01004101.xml










6.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 171/41







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1622 of 17 May 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on emerging markets and advanced economies

(Official Journal of the European Union 
OJ L 244 of 21 September 2022
)


On page 4, in Article 1(1):
for:


‘1.   For the purposes of specifying risk weights for the sensitivities to equity and equity repo rate risk factors in accordance with Article 325ap of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the following countries shall constitute advanced economies:






(a)


Member States of the European Union;










(b)


the overseas countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France or the Netherlands, including Faeroe Islands and those listed in Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










(c)


the following third countries:






(i)


third countries, which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area;










(ii)


Australia;










(iii)


Canada;










(iv)


Hong Kong;










(v)


Japan;










(vi)


Mexico;










(vii)


New Zealand;










(viii)


Singapore;










(ix)


Switzerland;










(x)


the United Kingdom;










(xi)


the United States.’









,read:


‘1.   For the purposes of specifying risk weights for the sensitivities to equity and equity repo rate risk factors in accordance with Article 325ap of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the following countries shall constitute advanced economies:






(a)


Member States of the European Union and countries which are Parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area;










(b)


the overseas countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France or the Netherlands, including the Faeroe Islands and those listed in Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










(c)


the following third countries:






(i)


Australia;










(ii)


Canada;










(iii)


Hong Kong;










(iv)


Japan;










(v)


Mexico;










(vi)


New Zealand;










(vii)


Singapore;










(viii)


Switzerland;










(ix)


the United Kingdom;










(x)


the United States.’









.
Case C-142/22, The Minister for Justice and Equality (Request for consent — Effects of the initial European arrest warrant: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — OE v The Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 27 — Prosecution for an offence committed prior to the person’s surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered — Request for consent sent to the executing judicial authority — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor of a Member State which is not an issuing judicial authority — Consequences for the request for consent)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, offence, public prosecution








C_2023296EN.01000801.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/8






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — OE v The Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-142/22, (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality (Request for consent — Effects of the initial European arrest warrant)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 27 - Prosecution for an offence committed prior to the person’s surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered - Request for consent sent to the executing judicial authority - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor of a Member State which is not an issuing judicial authority - Consequences for the request for consent)
(2023/C 296/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OE

Defendant: The Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(3)(g) and (4) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a European arrest warrant on the basis of which a person has been the subject of a surrender decision has been issued by an authority which did not constitute an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, does not preclude the executing judicial authority, to which a request to that effect has been made by an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1), from subsequently giving its consent to that person being prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered.


(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Case C-510/21, Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft): Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — DB v Austrian Airlines AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 17(1) — Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers — Concept of ‘accident’ — Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, civil aviation, civil liability, first aid, transport accident, trauma








C_2023296EN.01000501.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — DB v Austrian Airlines AG
(Case C-510/21, (1) Austrian Airlines (First aid on board an aircraft))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Liability of air carriers for death or injury sustained by passengers - Concept of ‘accident’ - Bodily injuries aggravated by first aid administered following an accident that took place on board an aircraft)
(2023/C 296/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DB

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001,
must be interpreted as meaning that the inadequate first aid administered on board an aircraft to a passenger, which aggravated the bodily injuries caused by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, must be regarded as forming part of that accident.


(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Case C-462/22, BM (Residence of the divorce applicant): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BM v LO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) — Forum actoris — Condition — Habitual residence of the applicant in the Member State of the court seised for the entire period immediately before the application was made)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence








C_2023296EN.01001201.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/12






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BM v LO
(Case C-462/22, (1) BM (Residence of the divorce applicant))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) - Forum actoris - Condition - Habitual residence of the applicant in the Member State of the court seised for the entire period immediately before the application was made)
(2023/C 296/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BM

Defendant: LO

Operative part of the judgment

The sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000,
must be interpreted as meaning that that provision makes the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State to hear an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties subject to the condition that the applicant, who is a national of that Member State, provides evidence that he or she has acquired a habitual residence in that Member State for at least six months immediately prior to the submission of his or her application.


(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.
Case C-404/22, Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Information and consultation of workers — Directive 2002/14/EC — Scope — Meaning of ‘undertaking carrying out an economic activity’ — Private-law entity operating in the public sector — Removal of workers appointed to managerial positions — No prior information or consultation of employee representatives)
Date: 2023-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, economic activity, firm governed by commercial law, labour law, legal person, manager, public sector, worker consultation, worker information








C_2023296EN.01001101.xml










21.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/11






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) v Elliniko Dimosio
(Case C-404/22, (1) Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Information and consultation of workers - Directive 2002/14/EC - Scope - Meaning of ‘undertaking carrying out an economic activity’ - Private-law entity operating in the public sector - Removal of workers appointed to managerial positions - No prior information or consultation of employee representatives)
(2023/C 296/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep)

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Questions referred







1.


Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community
must be interpreted as meaning that that provision may refer to a legal person governed by private law which acts as a legal person governed by public law and exercises public powers where it also provides, for remuneration, services which are in competition with those provided by market operators.










2.


Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 2002/14
must be interpreted as meaning that the information and consultation obligation laid down therein does not apply in the event of a change of post for a small number of employees appointed on an interim basis to management roles, where that change is not capable of affecting the situation, structure or probable development of employment within the undertaking concerned, or placing employment more generally under threat.






(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.