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.109037
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Luxembourg, State aid, control of State aid, viticulture








C_202401297EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1297


6.2.2024






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.109037
(C/2024/1297)







Date of adoption of the decision


18.12.2023




Aid number


SA.109037




Member State


Luxembourg




Region


Luxembourg




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Aide à la reconversion et restructuration des vignobles — Modification du régime d’aides SA.42085




Legal basis


Loi concernant le soutien au développement durable des zones rurales




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 1 080 000  EUR




Intensity


40,0  %




Duration


Until 30.6.2028




Economic sectors


Growing of grapes




Name and address of the granting authority







Service d'Economie rurale




115 Rue de Hollerich, 1741 Luxembourg








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/2024/1297/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-711/21: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2024 — ID and Others v Parliament
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, coronavirus disease, disease prevention, epidemic, equal treatment, health certificate, personal data, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, public building








C_202402334EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2334


2.4.2024





Order of the General Court of 6 February 2024 — ID and Others v Parliament
(Case T-711/21) (1)

(C/2024/2334)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2334/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.109350
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, State aid, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, crop production, plant health control








C_202401298EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1298


6.2.2024






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.109350
(C/2024/1298)







Date of adoption of the decision


18.12.2023




Aid number


SA.109350




Member State


Czechia




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Podpora biologické ochrany rostlin




Legal basis








1)


Zásady, kterými se stanovují podmínky pro poskytování dotací pro příslušný rok na základě § 1, § 2 a § 2d zákona č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství, ve znění pozdějších předpisů2) Zákon č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství, ve znění pozdějších předpisů








Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid for agri-environment-climate commitments




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 490 000 000  CZK
Annual budget: 70 000 000  CZK




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 31.12.2030




Economic sectors


Growing of other non-perennial crops




Name and address of the granting authority







Státní zemědělský intervenční fond




Ve Smečkách 33, 110 00 Praha








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/2024/1298/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.110443
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, State aid, control of State aid, farming sector, fishing industry, forestry policy








C_202401290EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1290


6.2.2024






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.110443
(C/2024/1290)







Date of adoption of the decision


19.12.2023




Aid number


SA.110443




Member State


Cyprus




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


ΕΘΝΙΚΟ ΠΛΑΙΣΙΟ ΧΟΡΗΓΗΣΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΙΚΩΝ ΕΝΙΣΧΥΣΕΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΤΙΣΤΑΘΜΙΣΗ ΖΗΜΙΩΝ ΑΠΟ ΔΥΣΜΕΝΗ ΚΛΙΜΑΤΙΚΑ ΦΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΑ ΣΤΟΝ ΤΟΜΕΑ ΤΗΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΑΣ




Legal basis


Απόφαση Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου, ημερομηνίας 12/7/2023, Αριθμός Πρότασης 819/2023, ΑΝΝΕΧ ΙΙ




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 70 000 000  EUR
Annual budget: 10 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 31.12.2030




Economic sectors


AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING




Name and address of the granting authority







Τμήμα Γεωργίας




Λεωφόρος Λουκή Ακρίτα, 1412, Λευκωσία, Κύπρος








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/2024/1290/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-98/24, Koda: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic), represented by an authorised court commissioner notary in Prague, lodged on 6 February 2024 – L. P and Others
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, private international law








C_202403583EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3583


17.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic), represented by an authorised court commissioner notary in Prague, lodged on 6 February 2024 – L. P and Others


(Case C-98/24, Koda)
                (1)

(C/2024/3583)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

Parties to the main proceedings

L.P.
A.K.
R.K.
R.F. von K.-K.

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Article 83(3) and (4) of Regulation No 650/2012, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 650/2012, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the term disposition of property upon death includes a declaration of disinheritance?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 83(4) of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that if, before 17 August 2015, the testator made several dispositions of property upon death that were in accordance with the law that the testator could have chosen in accordance with Regulation No 650/2012, is the law deemed to have been chosen as the law applicable to the succession that law under which the testator last made a disposition upon death before 17 August 2015?










3.


Must Article 26(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, if the testator’s capacity to make a disposition was restricted due to the making of a disposition of property upon death before 17 August 2015 under the law that governed his or her succession as a whole, and if a subsequent change of that law has resulted in changes to the conditions for the exercise of his or her capacity to make a disposition, the testator’s capacity to make a disposition continues to be restricted in accordance with the law that would have been applicable to that testator’s succession if he or she had died on the day on which the agreement as to succession was concluded, regardless of the fact that, according to the law governing his or her succession as a whole at the time of death, the testator was entitled to terminate (revoke or modify) that agreement as to succession?






(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 (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3583/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.111392
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, aquaculture, control of State aid, fishing industry








C_202401301EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1301


6.2.2024






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.111392
(C/2024/1301)







Date of adoption of the decision


18.1.2024




Aid number


SA.111392




Member State


France




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


TCTF: Dispositif de soutien aux entreprises de pêche pour faire face à l’augmentation des prix des matières premières et notamment de l’énergie liée à l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine (modification du régime SA.102839 (2022/N)




Legal basis


Décret et arrêté mettant en place le dispositif de soutien aux entreprises de pêche pour faire face à l’augmentation des prix des matières premières et notamment de l’énergie liée à l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 22 200 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 30.6.2024




Economic sectors


Fishing and aquaculture




Name and address of the granting authority







Direction générale des affaires maritimes, de la pêche et de l'aquaculture (DGAMPA)




68 rue de Bellechasse 75700 Paris








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/2024/1301/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-117/22,  BMW Bank and Others: Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof – Germany) – RS, PF, AM, PC, DF v BMW Bank GmbH, Mercedes-Benz Bank AG, Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Seat Bank, a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH (Removal from the register)
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, termination of a contract








C_202402401EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2401


8.4.2024





Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — RS, PF, AM, PC, DF v BMW Bank GmbH, Mercedes-Benz Bank AG, Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Seat Bank, a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH
(Case C-117/22, (1) BMW Bank and Others)
(Removal from the register)
(C/2024/2401)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: RS, PF, AM, PC, DF

Defendants: BMW Bank GmbH, Mercedes-Benz Bank AG, Volkswagen Bank GmbH, Seat Bank, a branch of Volkswagen Bank GmbH

Operative part of the order

Case C-117/22 is removed from the Register of the Court.


(1)  Date lodged: 18.2.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2401/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11321 – VWFS / PON BIKE / BMS)
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cycle and motorcycle industry, economic concentration, financial services, hire purchase, holding company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, rental business, vehicle rental








C_202402241EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2241


19.3.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11321 – VWFS / PON BIKE / BMS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2241)

On 6 February 2024, 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 32024M11321. 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/2024/2241/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-91/24, Aucroix: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2024 – Criminal proceedings against HL
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, carrying out of sentence, fundamental rights, human rights, law of states








C_202403151EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3151


21.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2024 – Criminal proceedings against HL


(Case C-91/24, Aucroix)
                (1)

(C/2024/3151)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceeding

Procureur général de Mons
HL

Question referred

Where the courts of a Member State executing a European arrest warrant have found that, in the event of the surrender of the requested person to the issuing Member State, there is a risk of that person’s fundamental rights being infringed in connection with the execution of the foreign sentence, with the consequence that there are grounds for refusing to execute the European arrest warrant, must Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2) be interpreted as requiring those courts of the executing State to examine – in order to avoid a situation where the requested person who is a national of or resides in that State might remain unpunished – whether it is appropriate to order, in accordance with the provision transposing the abovementioned Article 4(6) into national law, that the custodial sentence imposed on the person concerned in the Member State that issued the European arrest warrant, which is referred to in that warrant, be served in the executing Member State?


(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)  
            OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3151/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11427 – AURELIUS / DAYCO’S PROPULSION SOLUTIONS)
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy-generating product, industrial research, investment company, merger control, vehicle parts








C_202401482EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1482


13.2.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11427 – AURELIUS / DAYCO’S PROPULSION SOLUTIONS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1482)

On 6 February 2024, 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 32024M11427. 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/2024/1482/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-399/23, Osóquim: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — MB v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law — Vehicle tax — Second-hand vehicles from other Member States — Percentage reductions linked to depreciation — Calculation on the basis of a cubic capacity component and an environmental component — Application of different reduction percentages to each component of the tax)
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, case-law (EU), engine, environmental protection, motor car, motor vehicle pollution, tax relief, used goods, vehicle tax








C_202402132EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2132


25.3.2024





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — MB v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-399/23, (1) Osóquim (2))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law - Vehicle tax - Second-hand vehicles from other Member States - Percentage reductions linked to depreciation - Calculation on the basis of a cubic capacity component and an environmental component - Application of different reduction percentages to each component of the tax)
(C/2024/2132)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MB

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, for the purposes of calculating the amount of a vehicle tax when applied to a second-hand vehicle from a different Member State, does not take depreciation into account for the environmental component of that tax in the same proportion and on the same terms as it does for the cubic capacity component of the tax, if and to the extent that the amount of the tax levied on that vehicle exceeds the residual value of the tax incorporated in the value of similar domestic vehicles on the domestic market for second-hand vehicles.


(1)  Date lodged: 29.6.2023.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2132/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-97/24, The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 6 February 2024 – S.A., R.J. v The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland, The Attorney General
Date: 2024-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, claim, fundamental rights, infringement of EU law








C_202403309EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3309


3.6.2024






Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 6 February 2024 – S.A., R.J. v The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland, The Attorney General


(Case C-97/24, The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth)

(C/2024/3309)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: S.A. and R.J.

Defendants: The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General

Questions referred







1.


Where “force majeure” is not found as a defence in a Directive or implementing Regulations in issue, is such a defence nonetheless available as a defence to a Francovich (1) damages claim for a breach of an EU law obligation that confers rights on individuals which derive from the fundamental right to human dignity contained in Article 1 of the Charter (whether as a defence within the second limb of the Brasserie du Pêcheur/Factortame (2) test or otherwise)?










2.


If the answer to question (1) is “yes”, what are the parameters and proper scope of that force majeure defence?






(1)  ECLI:EU:C:1991:428.

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:1996:79.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3309/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)