do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
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.110570Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2024-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, land transport, pipeline transport








C_202401220EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1220


1.2.2024






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.110570
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1220)







Date of adoption of the decision


22.1.2024




Aid number


SA.110570




Member State


Italy




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


TCTF: Aid to undertakings performing own-account road haulage transport of goods (re-introduction of SA.108573)




Legal basis


AMENDMENT SUBMITTED TO AS 912 RELATED TO THE CONVERSION OF DECREE-LAW No 145 of 18 October 2023, on ‘Urgent economic and fiscal measures, in favor of local and regional authorities, to protect employment and for non-deferrable needs’, for the further amendment of Article 14(1)(a) of Decree-Law 144/2022




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


 




Budget


Overall budget: 69 855 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


22.1.2024 — 30.6.2024




Economic sectors


Land transport and transport via pipelines




Name and address of the granting authority







MINISTERO DELLE INFRASTRUTTURE E DEI TRASPORTI




via Giuseppe Caraci, 36 00157 ROMA








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/2024/1220/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-77/24, Wunner : Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2024 – NM, OU v TE
Date: 2024-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, commercial law, conflict of jurisdiction, damages, game of chance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, online game, residence








C_202403055EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3055


13.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2024 – NM, OU v TE


(Case C-77/24, Wunner
                (1)
)

(C/2024/3055)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants on a point of law: NM, OU

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TE

Questions referred









1.


Must Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to claims for damages against an officer of a company which a creditor of the company bases on tortious liability for infringement of protective provisions (such as provisions of legislation on games of chance) by that officer?












2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Must Article 4(1) of the abovementioned regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an action for damages based on tortious liability in respect of gaming losses suffered which is brought against an officer of a company offering online games of chance in Austria without a licence, the place where the damage occurred is determined by






(a)


the place from which the player effects credit transfers from his or her bank account to the player account maintained by the company,










(b)


the place where the company maintains the player account in which deposits from the player, winnings, losses and bonuses are entered,










(c)


the place from which the player places bets via that player account which ultimately result in a loss,










(d)


the player’s place of residence as the location of his or her claim to payment of the credit balance in his or her player account,










(e)


the location of the player’s main assets?










(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)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3055/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-52/24: Action brought on 1 February 2024 — CG v EFSA
Date: 2024-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, competence of the institution, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_202402441EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2441


8.4.2024





Action brought on 1 February 2024 — CG v EFSA
(Case T-52/24)
(C/2024/2441)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: CG (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the applicant’s appraisal report relating to the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, notified on 27 March 2023;










—


annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) of 24 October 2023, notified on the same day, rejecting complaint No R.400/23 submitted on 26 June 2023 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union against the decision notified on 27 March 2023, by which the applicant’s 2022 appraisal report was adopted;










—


order EFSA to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements (Article 263 TFEU) and lack of competence of the body which adopted the appraisal report.










2.


Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging misuse of powers and breach of the principle of impartiality.










6.


Sixth plea, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2441/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)