do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-145/24: Action brought on 8 March 2024 – CU v EEAS
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, evidence, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_202403079EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3079


13.5.2024






Action brought on 8 March 2024 – CU v EEAS


(Case T-145/24)

(C/2024/3079)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CU (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Director of the Budget and Human Resources of 5 May 2023 rejecting his request for assistance submitted on 18 February 2021 under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the psychological harm resulting from its failings, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the reasonable time limit, the duty to provide assistance and the principle of good administration due to the length of the investigation, the time taken to process the request for assistance, and the failure to process the complaint submitted against the adverse decision which justifies the payment of compensation;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to be heard in an effective and useful manner, the lack of impartiality and a breach of the right to fair proceedings and the right to be entitled to a full investigation which seeks evidence both for and against the person concerned;










3.


Third plea in law based on a manifest error of assessment of the allegations made, the concept of harassment and what should be considered to be abusive conduct, as well as the individual and collective responsibilities concerned.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3079/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-69/23,  Streaming Services: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Roumania) – Streaming Services Srl – in liquidation, represented by the receiver Cabinet Individual de Insolvență ‘Mihai Florea’ v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Călărași
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, VAT, digital distribution, double taxation, establishment, provision of services, sexuality, tax law, taxpayer, video communications








C_202403454EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3454


10.6.2024






Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Roumania) – Streaming Services Srl – in liquidation, represented by the receiver Cabinet Individual de Insolvență ‘Mihai Florea’ v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Călărași


(Case C-69/23,
                (1)
Streaming Services)

(C/2024/3454)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 205, 12.6.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3454/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/257 of 10 January 2024 fixing for 2024, 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/194 (Official Journal of the European Union L, 2024/257, 11 January 2024)
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_202490159EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series L













2024/90159


8.3.2024






Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/257 of 10 January 2024 fixing for 2024, 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/194

(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2024/257, 11 January 2024
)








1.


On page 7, recital 35:




for:







‘(35)


Since 2021, the Union does not have access to fishing of its mackerel quota in Norwegian waters of the North Sea (MAC/2A4A-N). In order for the Union to use that quota, it is appropriate to allocate new fishing opportunities to a TAC (MAC/2A34-N) covering the geographical scope of the North Sea (MAC/2A34) and Norwegian Waters (MAC/2A4A-N) with a new relative stability key. Part of the fishing opportunities allocated to the MAC/2A34-N should be transferred by Denmark to the holders of quotas in the Western Waters TAC (MAC/2ACX14-) based on the existing relative stability key for that TAC.’,





read:







‘(35)


Since 2021, the Union does not have access to fishing of its mackerel quota in Norwegian waters of the North Sea (MAC/2A4A-N). In order for the Union to use that quota, it is appropriate to allocate new fishing opportunities to a TAC (MAC/2A34-N) covering the geographical scope of the North Sea (MAC/2A34.) and Norwegian Waters (MAC/2A4A-N) with a new relative stability key. Part of the fishing opportunities allocated to the MAC/2A34-N should be transferred by Denmark to the holders of quotas in the Western Waters TAC (MAC/2CX14-) based on the existing relative stability key for that TAC.’.











2.


On page 8, recital 51, second sentence:




for:


                  ‘Such a measure is functionally linked to the TAC for the stock, as without such measure the TAC level alone would not ensure sufficient protection of pupping females, which constitute a particularly vulnerable part of the population.’,

read:


                  ‘Such a measure is functionally linked to the TAC for the stock, as without such measure the TAC level alone would not ensure sufficient protection of mature females, which constitute a particularly vulnerable part of the population.’.



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/257/corrigendum/2024-03-08/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-189/24, Tudmur: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 8 March 2024 – QS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, asylum seeker, cruel and degrading treatment, international protection, resettlement of persons, right of asylum








C_202403894EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3894


1.7.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 8 March 2024 – QS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland


(Case C-189/24, Tudmur)
                (1)

(C/2024/3894)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QS

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Is the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and the reception conditions for applicants in the Member State primarily designated as responsible, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, where that Member State refuses in principle to (take back or) take charge of asylum seekers, for an indefinite period of time, on account of a State-ordered suspension of the acceptance of transfers?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, is the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of EU law on the determination of the facts, which require the establishment of objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information on the asylum procedure and the reception conditions for applicants to be transferred, are restricted where the adjudicating court cannot obtain that information and would be able to determine only a hypothetical set of facts because the Member State in question refuses in principle to (take back or) take charge of asylum seekers, for an indefinite period of time, on account of a State-ordered suspension of the acceptance of transfers?






(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 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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3894/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-192/24 P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2024 by Air France-KLM and Société Air France against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-216/21, Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, guarantee, holding company, loan, subsidiary








C_202402751EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2751


29.4.2024






Appeal brought on 8 March 2024 by Air France-KLM and Société Air France against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-216/21, Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission


(Case C-192/24 P)

(C/2024/2751)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Air France-KLM, Société Air France (represented by: J. Derenne, D. Vallindas, avocats, A. Álvarez Vidal, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair DAC, Malta Air ltd., European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union to give final judgment in the matter and dismiss the action for annulment lodged in Case T-216/21;










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas not already assessed, and










—


reserve the costs of the present proceedings, if it refers the case back to the General Court, or order Ryanair DAC and Malta Air ltd. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of those in first instance, if it gives final judgment in the matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First Plea: the General Court applied an incorrect standard for the determination of the aid beneficiary within a corporate group and, therefore, wrongly concluded that the Air France-KLM Holding and its subsidiaries, including KLM and its subsidiaries, could not be excluded from the beneficiary of the aid measure at issue.
Second Plea: the General Court substituted its own assessment of the determination of the aid beneficiary without adequately establishing a manifest error of assessment of the contested decision (1) of the European Commission.
Third Plea: the General Court committed an error in law in its interpretation of the notions of indirect advantage and secondary effects in the State aid field.


(1)  Commission Decision C(2020) 2983 final of 4 May 2020 on State Aid SA.57082 (2020/N) – France – COVID-19 – Temporary Framework 107(3)(b) – Guarantee and shareholder loan for Air France, as corrected by Decisions C(2020) 9384 final of 17 December 2020 and C(2021) 5701 final of 26 July 2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2751/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-144/24: Action brought on 8 March 2024 – Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen v EUIPO – Pürschel (BIENENBEISSER)
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, metal product, piping, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202402787EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2787


29.4.2024






Action brought on 8 March 2024 – Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen v EUIPO – Pürschel (BIENENBEISSER)


(Case T-144/24)

(C/2024/2787)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen BV (Hoogeveen, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Roerdink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sören Pürschel (Frankfurt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BIENENBEISSER – European Union trade mark No 8 714 834
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2024 in Case R 793/2023-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision to the extent that the trade mark at issue was partially revoked for goods in Class 19;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(l)(a) read together with Article 33(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2787/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-186/24, Auto1 European Cars: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2024 – Dr Matthäus Metzler as insolvency practitioner v Auto1 European Cars B.V.
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, debt, electronic money, establishment, financial solvency, financial transaction, payment








C_202403060EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3060


13.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2024 – Dr Matthäus Metzler as insolvency practitioner v Auto1 European Cars B.V.


(Case C-186/24, Auto1 European Cars)

(C/2024/3060)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dr Matthäus Metzler, as insolvency practitioner

Respondent: Auto1 European Cars B.V.

Questions referred









1.


Is Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that obligations honoured for the benefit of the debtor which should have been honoured for the benefit of the practitioner in the insolvency proceedings also include, within the meaning of that provision, such obligations arising from a legal transaction which the debtor did not conclude until after the opening of insolvency proceedings and the transfer of powers to the insolvency practitioner?




If the above question is answered in the affirmative:








2.


Is Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that the place in which an obligation is honoured within the meaning of that provision is the place from which the third party’s payment is made by credit transfer from a bank account there, even if the third party is established not in that Member State but in another Member State, while the conclusion of the legal transaction and the honouring of the debtor’s obligation took place not there but through a branch of the third party in yet another Member State, namely in the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings have been opened?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3060/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-193/24 P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2024 by Air France-KLM and Société Air France against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-494/21, Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, airline, capital increase, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, group of companies, holding company








C_202402752EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2752


29.4.2024






Appeal brought on 8 March 2024 by Air France-KLM and Société Air France against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-494/21, Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission


(Case C-193/24 P)

(C/2024/2752)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Air France-KLM, Société Air France (represented by: J. Derenne, D. Vallindas, avocats, A. Álvarez Vidal, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair DAC, Malta Air ltd., European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union to give final judgment in the matter and dismiss the action for annulment lodged in Case T-494/21;










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas not already assessed, and










—


order Ryanair DAC and Malta Air ltd. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of those in first instance, if it gives final judgment in the matter, or reserve the costs of the present proceedings, if it refers the case back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


First Plea: the General Court applied an incorrect standard for the determination of the aid beneficiary within a corporate group and, therefore, wrongly concluded that KLM could not be excluded from the beneficiary of the aid measure at issue.

Second Plea: the General Court substituted its own assessment of the determination of the aid beneficiary without adequately establishing a manifest error of assessment of the contested decision (1) of the European Commission.

Third Plea: the General Court committed an error in law in its interpretation of the notions of indirect advantage and secondary effects in the State aid field.


(1)  Commission Decision C(2021) 2488 final of 5 April 2021 in Case SA.59913 (2021/N) – France – COVID-19 – Recapitalisation of Air France and the Air France-KLM Holding.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2752/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-155/24: Action brought on 8 March 2024 – EUSPA v Eastern Airways (UK)
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: eligibility criteria, reimbursement of aid, satellite communications, satellite navigation








C_202403082EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3082


13.5.2024






Action brought on 8 March 2024 – EUSPA v Eastern Airways (UK)


(Case T-155/24)

(C/2024/3082)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Union Agency for the Space Programme (represented by: E. Villa, agent)

Defendant: Eastern Airways (UK) Ltd (Sutton Coldfield, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to repay the sum of EUR 247 033,60, together with late payment interest amounting to 3.50% of the principal amount from 21 September 2021 until payment; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
The applicant alleges it is entitled to the repayment of the pre-financing amount granted for the purposes of Grant Agreement No. GSA/GRANT/EGNOS/02/2014 (‘the Grant Agreement’), since:






—


the defendant did not implement the Action, as specified in Annex I of the Grant Agreement, and failed to comply with its substantial contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement, which led to the rightful termination of the latter;










—


the gravity of the defendant’s failings justifies the full recovery of the aforementioned pre-financing amount, since no objectives of the Action were reached by the time of the rightful termination of the Grant Agreement and the Action did not yield any results envisaged by the defendant in its proposal;










—


the applicant took all prescribed procedural steps prior to recovery.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3082/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 7 March 2024
Date: 2024-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202401929EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1929


8.3.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            7 March 2024
         
(C/2024/1929)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0895 




JPY


Japanese yen


161,09 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4552 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85445 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1944 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9577 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,3940 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,359 




HUF


Hungarian forint


395,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3020 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9707 




TRY


Turkish lira


34,6929 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6501 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4705 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5215 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7688 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4549 




KRW


South Korean won


1 446,67 




ZAR


South African rand


20,4622 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8412 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 038,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1266 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,794 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,764 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3835 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3715 




INR


Indian rupee


90,1205 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1929/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)