do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-581/23, Beevers Kaas: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 September 2023 — Beevers Kaas BV v Albert Heijn België NV and Others, other party: B.A. Coöperatieve Zuivelonderneming Cono
Date: 2023-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, exclusive distribution agreement, restriction on competition, sale, supplier








C_202301435EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1435


18.12.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 September 2023 — Beevers Kaas BV v Albert Heijn België NV and Others, other party: B.A. Coöperatieve Zuivelonderneming Cono
(Case C-581/23, Beevers Kaas)
(C/2023/1435)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Beevers Kaas BV

Defendants: Albert Heijn België NV, Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize NV, Albert Heijn BV, Ahold België BV

Other party: B.A. Coöperatieve Zuivelonderneming Cono

Questions referred







1.


Can the parallel imposition requirement laid down in Article 4(b)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 (1) of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices be regarded as met, and can a supplier who satisfies the other conditions laid down in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 therefore legitimately prohibit active sales by one of its buyers into a territory for which one other buyer has been exclusively assigned, solely on the basis of the finding that the other buyers do not actively sell into the territory? In other words: is the existence of an agreement prohibiting active sales between those other buyers and the supplier adequately proved merely on the basis of the finding that those other buyers do not actively sell into the exclusively allocated territory?










2.


Can the parallel imposition requirement laid down in Article 4(b)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices be regarded as met, and can a supplier who satisfies the other conditions laid down in Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 therefore legitimately prohibit active sales by one of its buyers into a territory for which one buyer has been exclusively assigned, where the supplier receives the acceptance of its other buyers only if and in so far as they show signs of actively selling into the territory thus exclusively allocated? Or, on the contrary, must such acceptance have been received from each of the supplier’s buyers, irrespective of whether those buyers show signs of actively selling into the exclusively allocated territory?






(1)  
            OJ 2010 L 102, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1435/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 21/09/2023 concerning a draft decision in case AT.37990 – INTEL – Rapporteur: Czechia
Date: 2023-09-21
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, computer equipment, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic component, restrictive trade practice, sanction (EU)








C_202301014EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1014


17.11.2023






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 21/09/2023 concerning a draft decision in case AT.37990 – INTEL
Rapporteur: Czechia
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1014)


Meeting by Video Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’
                  









1.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission to re-impose a fine on Intel by means of a decision pursuant to Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 for the naked restrictions.












2.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the value of sales used in this case.












3.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision as regards the duration of the infringement.












4.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating and no mitigating circumstances in this case.












5.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine imposed on Intel.












6.


The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1014/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-568/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Diplomatic Card: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E., S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Dublin System — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Responsibility of the Member State which issued a residence document to the applicant — Article 2(l) — Meaning of ‘residence document’ — Diplomatic card issued by a Member State — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Date: 2023-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: diplomatic protection, identity document, international protection, residence permit, right of asylum








C_202300622EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/622


13.11.2023





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E., S.
(Case C-568/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Diplomatic Card)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Dublin System - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Responsibility of the Member State which issued a residence document to the applicant - Article 2(l) - Meaning of ‘residence document’ - Diplomatic card issued by a Member State - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
(C/2023/622)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: E., S.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(l) 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
must be interpreted as meaning that a diplomatic card issued under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, concluded in Vienna on 18 April 1961, and entered into force on 24 April 1964, is a ‘residence document’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/622/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)