do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-739/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Belgacom International Carrier Services against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, multinational enterprise, profit, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax law








C_202401527EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1527


26.2.2024





Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Belgacom International Carrier Services against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
(Case C-739/23 P)
(C/2024/1527)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Belgacom International Carrier Services (represented by: C. Borgers, B. Buytaert and H. Vanhulle, advocaten, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (1) (‘the contested decision’); or










—


on a precautionary basis, in the event the Court considers that it cannot decide on the annulment of the contested decision, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law by substituting the interpretation of Belgian law by the competent Belgian authorities and courts with its own diverging interpretation of Belgian law.
Second, the General Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence. When assessing whether the excess profit exemption was an inherent feature of the Belgian corporate income tax rules, the General Court arbitrarily did not take all relevant factors into account. In particular, it ignored the relevant practice of national authorities and courts without providing any objective reason or justification.
Third, the General Court erred in law when finding that the contested decision had shown the existence of an advantage.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law and distorted the evidence when assessing the excess profit exemption scheme’s selectivity.


(1)  
            OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1527/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-173/22 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 November 2023 — MG v European Investment Bank (EIB) (Appeal — Civil service — Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) — EIB Staff Rules — Remuneration — Family allowances — Payment to the sole parent with full custody of the child — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41(2) — Right to be heard — Plea of illegality in respect of the Staff Rules — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality — Action for annulment and for damages)
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, child, custody, dependant, equal treatment, family benefit, indemnification, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_202400697EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/697


22.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 November 2023 — MG v European Investment Bank (EIB)
(Case C-173/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) - EIB Staff Rules - Remuneration - Family allowances - Payment to the sole parent with full custody of the child - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41(2) - Right to be heard - Plea of illegality in respect of the Staff Rules - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Action for annulment and for damages)
(C/2024/697)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: MG (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: K. Carr, G. Faedo and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 December 2021, MG v EIB (T 573/20, EU:T:2021:915);










2.


Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB), of which the appellant was informed by the letters of 11 October 2018, 7 January 2019 and 30 July 2020;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by MG in the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceeding.






(1)  
            OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/697/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11174 – GCA / BPMA / VA / VP)
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, banking, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, provision of services








C_202400639EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/639


5.1.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11174 – GCA / BPMA / VA / VP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/639)

On 30 November 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11174. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/639/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-737/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Capsugel Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, multinational enterprise, profit, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax law








C_202401525EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1525


26.2.2024





Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Capsugel Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
(Case C-737/23 P)
(C/2024/1525)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Capsugel Belgium (represented by: C. Borgers, B. Buytaert and H. Vanhulle, advocaten, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (1) (‘the contested decision’); or










—


on a precautionary basis, in the event the Court considers that it cannot decide on the annulment of the contested decision, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law by substituting the interpretation of Belgian law by the competent Belgian authorities and courts with its own diverging interpretation of Belgian law.
Second, the General Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence. When assessing whether the excess profit exemption was an inherent feature of the Belgian corporate income tax rules, the General Court arbitrarily did not take all relevant factors into account. In particular, it ignored the relevant practice of national authorities and courts without providing any objective reason or justification.
Third, the General Court erred in law when finding that the contested decision had shown the existence of an advantage.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law and distorted the evidence when assessing the excess profit exemption scheme’s selectivity.


(1)  
            OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1525/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11347 – CARLYLE / GTCR / CAPTRUST)
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United States, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, health care, investment, investment company, merger control, service, technology, telecommunications








C_202400640EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/640


5.1.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11347 – CARLYLE / GTCR / CAPTRUST)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/640)

On 30 November 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11347. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/640/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2739 of 30 November 2023 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Χαλίτζια Τηλλυρίας / Halitzia Tillirias (PGI))
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, designation of origin, goats’ milk cheese, labelling, product designation, semi-soft cheese, soft cheese








L_202302739EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2023/2739


7.12.2023







            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/2739
of 30 November 2023
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλίτζια Τηλλυρίας / Halitzia Tillirias’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cyprus’s application to register the name ‘Χαλίτζια Τηλλυρίας / Halitzia Tillirias’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Χαλίτζια Τηλλυρίας / Halitzia Tillirias’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Χαλίτζια Τηλλυρίας / Halitzia Tillirias’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 November 2023.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 290, 18.8.2023, p. 57.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2739/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-270/22, Ministero dell’Istruzione and INPS: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Ravenna — Italy) — G.D., A.R., C.M. v Ministero dell’Istruzione, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Public sector — Teachers — Employment of fixed-term workers as career civil servants through recruitment based on qualifications — Determination of the period of service deemed accrued)
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, framework agreement, labour law, professional qualifications, public sector, recruitment, seniority, teacher, temporary employment








C_202400698EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/698


22.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Ravenna — Italy) — G.D., A.R., C.M. v Ministero dell’Istruzione, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
(Case C-270/22, (1) Ministero dell’Istruzione and INPS)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Public sector - Teachers - Employment of fixed-term workers as career civil servants through recruitment based on qualifications - Determination of the period of service deemed accrued)
(C/2024/698)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Ravenna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: G.D., A.R., C.M.

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP,
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of recognising the length of service of a worker upon his or her establishment in employment as a career civil servant, excludes periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts that do not amount to 180 days per academic year or that are not carried out continuously between 1 February and the end of the final assessment of the pupils, irrespective of the actual number of hours worked, and which limits to two thirds the taking into account of periods of service reaching those thresholds beyond four years, subject to reinstatement of the remaining third after a certain number of years of service.


(1)  
            OJ C 266, 11.7.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/698/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-742/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Eval Europe NV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, multinational enterprise, profit, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax law








C_202401530EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1530


26.2.2024





Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Eval Europe NV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 September 2023 in Joined Cases T-266/16, T-324/16, T-351/16, T-363/16, T-371/16 and T-388/16, Capsugel Belgium and Others v Commission
(Case C-742/23 P)
(C/2024/1530)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Eval Europe NV (represented by: C. Borgers, B. Buytaert and H. Vanhulle, advocaten, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (1) (‘the contested decision’); or










—


on a precautionary basis, in the event the Court considers that it cannot decide on the annulment of the contested decision, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law by substituting the interpretation of Belgian law by the competent Belgian authorities and courts with its own diverging interpretation of Belgian law.
Second, the General Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence. When assessing whether the excess profit exemption was an inherent feature of the Belgian corporate income tax rules, the General Court arbitrarily did not take all relevant factors into account. In particular, it ignored the relevant practice of national authorities and courts without providing any objective reason or justification.
Third, the General Court erred in law when finding that the contested decision had shown the existence of an advantage.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law and distorted the evidence when assessing the excess profit exemption scheme’s selectivity.


(1)  
            OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1530/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-732/23 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Răzvan-Eugen Nicolescu, Exclusive Car Trading SRL, Asociația pentru Energie Curată și Combaterea Schimbărilor Climatice against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2023 in Case T-272/23 Nicolescu and Others v Council
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, Schengen Agreement








C_202406069EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6069


21.10.2024






Appeal brought on 30 November 2023 by Răzvan-Eugen Nicolescu, Exclusive Car Trading SRL, Asociația pentru Energie Curată și Combaterea Schimbărilor Climatice against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2023 in Case T-272/23 Nicolescu and Others v Council


(Case C-732/23 P)

(C/2024/6069)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Appellants: Răzvan-Eugen Nicolescu, Exclusive Car Trading SRL, Asociația pentru Energie Curată și Combaterea Schimbărilor Climatice (represented by: Y. Beșleagă, M. Bodea, D. Bogdan, C. Pintilie, V. Stoica, avocați)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
By order of 8 July 2024, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6069/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Council conclusions on the contribution of education and training to strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship (Official Journal of the European Union C, C/2023/1339, 29 November 2023)
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European citizenship, European identity, cooperation in the field of education, cultural pluralism, democracy, education, education policy, equal treatment, social integration, vocational training








C_202390021EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C














30.11.2023






Corrigendum to Council conclusions on the contribution of education and training to strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship

(
Official Journal of the European Union C, C/2023/1339, 29 November 2023
)


This publication should be considered null and void.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1339/corrigendum/2023-11-30/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.108788Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2023-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, air conditioning, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy supply, gas supply








C_202301247EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1247


30.11.2023






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.108788
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1247)







Date of adoption of the decision


9.11.2023




Aid number


SA.108788




Member State


Netherlands




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


NL — TCTF — Temporary aid scheme for undertakings having implemented renewable heat projects




Legal basis


Artikel 3 van de Kaderwet EZK- en LNV-subsidies




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 60 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 31.12.2023




Economic sectors


Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply




Name and address of the granting authority







De Minister voor Klimaat en Energie




Postbus 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1247/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)