(AGENPARL) – gio 27 aprile 2023 �� &#x/Att;&#xache;&#xd [/;&#xBott;&#xom ];&#x/BBo;&#xx [4;&#x6.67;&#x1 14;&#x.337;&#x4 48;&#x9.96;&#x68 4;&#x6.64;&#x3 ]/;&#xSubt;&#xype ;&#x/Foo;&#xter ;&#x/Typ;&#xe /P;&#xagin;&#xatio;&#xn 00;&#x/Att;&#xache;&#xd [/;&#xBott;&#xom ];&#x/BBo;&#xx [4;&#x6.67;&#x1 14;&#x.337;&#x4 48;&#x9.96;&#x68 4;&#x6.64;&#x3 ]/;&#xSubt;&#xype ;&#x/Foo;&#xter ;&#x/Typ;&#xe /P;&#xagin;&#xatio;&#xn 00;Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit

curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks
to 12
Contact us
Jacques René
Zammit
Desk Email
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on Twitter
Download our
All times are 9:30
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the
diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
XVIII
Thursday 4
Judgment
in Case
40/21
Agen?ia Na?ional? de Integritate
Principles of Community Law
In 2016, the applicant in the main proceedings was
MN (Romania). In a report drawn up in 2019, the Agen?ia Na?ional? de Integritate (ANI)
?atio?l I?e?ity A??y, Roma?a?fo?d t?t ? ?d failed to comply wit?t? r?es
gove?ing conflicts of inte?st in administ?t?e
ma?ers. In ?e even??a??is repor?
became fi?l, t? ma?ate of t? applica? i?t? mai?proceedi?s wo?d be
?fice f? ?peri? ? three ye?s w?ld be imp?ed ? hi
T? applica? i?t? mai?proceedi?s bro?? a?actio?for a??me? of t?t report,
ar?i? t?t U?o?law precl?ed ?tio?l le?slatio??der whic?s??a pro?bitio?is
imp?ed, ?t??ic?ly ?d with?t the p?sibility ? m?ul?i? ?c?ding t?the
sit?tio?of ??lict of i?erest?
The ?fe?ing cou? decided?o ask the Cou? whethe?this p?hibition complied with
the p?nciple of p?po?ionalit?of penalties,?he ?ght
to work a? t? ri?t to a?
effective ?med?and to a fai?t?al, gua?nteed b?the Cha?e?of ?ndamental ?ghts
of t? E?opea?U?o?
Background Documents
40/21
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 4
Judgment in Case C
389/21 P ECB v Crédit Lyonnais
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
Economic Policy
Crédit Lyonnais is a public limited company incorporated under French law
authorised as a credit institution. This credit institution is a subsidiary of Crédit
Agricole SA and, as such, is subject to direct prudential supervision by the European
Central Bank (ECB ).
On 5 May 2015, Crédit Agricole, on its own behalf and on b
ehalf of the entities of the
Crédit Agricole group, including Crédit Lyonnais, requested the ECB’s authorisation to
exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures to Caisse des Dépôts
et Consignations (CDC), a French public institution, r
esulting from deposits made in
several savings books, which, according to the applicable French regulations, must be
compulsorily transferred to CDC.
The decision of 24 August 2016, by which the ECB had refused to grant Crédit Agricole
the requested authorisation, was annulled by a judgment of the General Court.
Following this judgment, Crédit Agricole reintroduced its request to the ECB for
permissio
n to exclude exposures to CDC. By decision of 3 May 2019, the ECB
authorised Crédit Agricole and the entities forming part of the Crédit Agricole group,
with the exception of Crédit Lyonnais, to exclude from the calculation of the leverage
ratio all their
exposures to CDC. Crédit Lyonnais, on the other hand, was only allowed
to exclude 66%. In the contested decision, the ECB applied a methodology which took
into account three elements, namely, the credit quality of the French central
government, the risk of
a distressed sale and the level of concentration of exposures
to CDC.
Crédit Lyonnais’ application for annulment of the contested decision insofar as it
refused to authorise Crédit Lyonnais to exclude from the calculation of its leverage
ratio all of its
exposure to CDC was upheld by the
General Court
Specifically, the
General Court
found that the reason for the contested decision based
on the level of risk of distressed sales was vitiated by “illegality”. Consequently, the
other two elements of the m
ethodology applied by the ECB could not have led to the
ECB refusing, in the contested decision, to grant Crédit Lyonnais the benefit of the
exclusion for all of that institution’s exposure to CDC.
The ECB appealed the General Court judgment.
Background Documents
389/21 P
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 4
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
Judgment in Case C
487/21
Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde and CRIF
Approximation of Laws
CRIF is a business intelligence agency which provides, at the request of its clients,
information concerning the creditworthiness of third parties. For that purpose, it
processed the personal data of the applicant in the main proceedings, an individual.
he latter requested CRIF, on the basis of the General Data Protection Regulation, to
have access to his personal data. In addition, he asked to be provided with a copy of
the documents, namely e
mails and database extracts, containing, inter alia, his data
‘in a standard technical format’.
In response to that request, CRIF sent the applicant in the main proceedings a list of
his personal data being processed, in summary form. Taking the view that CRIF should
have sent him a copy of all the documents con
taining his data, such as e
mails and
database extracts, the applicant in the main proceedings lodged a complaint with the
Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde (Austrian data protection authority).
That authority rejected the complaint, considering that C
RIF had not committed any
breach of the right of access to the personal data of the applicant in the main
proceedings.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Austria), before which
the applicant in the main proceedings appealed again
st the rejection decision adopted
by that authority, questioned the scope of the obligation laid down in the first
sentence of Article 15(3) of the RGPD to provide the data subject with a ‘copy’ of his or
her personal data undergoing processing.
In parti
cular, the court wonders whether that obligation is satisfied when the
controller transmits the personal data in the form of a summary table or whether that
obligation also entails transmitting extracts of the documents or even entire
documents, as well as
extracts from databases, in which those data are reproduced.
The referring court also requests clarification of the precise meaning of the term
‘information’ in the third sentence of Article 15(3) of the RGPD.
Background Documents
487/21
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 4
Judgment in Case C
Österreichi
sche Post (Moral prejudice due to
treatment of personal data)
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
Approximation of Laws
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of
General Data
Protection Regulation, read in conjunction with the principles of equivalence
effectiveness.
That application was made in the context of a dispute between UI and Österreichische
Post AG concerning the action brought by the former for compensation for the non
material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of the pr
ocessing by that
company of data relating to the political affinities of persons residing in Austria, in
particular himself, even though he had not consented to such processing.
Background Doc
uments
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 4
Opinion
in Case
Luxembourg v Commission
and in Case C
454/21 P
Engie Global LNG Holidng and others v Commission
State Aid
By decision of 20 June 2018, the Commission found that Luxembourg had granted
unlawful State aid to the Engie Group in the context of restructuring operations within
embourg.
The group had been promised tax treatment in tax rulings under which almost all
profits generated by two subsidiaries in Luxembourg ultimately remained untaxed.
This was because although at the level of the operating subsidiaries only a low leve
l of
taxation was applied on the basis of an agreed tax base, the parent companies
benefited from the tax exemption for investment income (intercompany privilege).
This had granted the Engie group a selective advantage in derogation of Luxembourg
tax law. This is because a corresponding correspondence principle (tax exemption at
the level of the parent company only with prior taxation at the level of the subsidiary)
can be inferred from national law. In addition, the tax authorities had unlawfully
refrained from applying a provision to avoid abuses.
The EU General Court, seised by the Engie Group and Luxembourg, fully endorsed the
Commission’s view and dismissed the claims. The Engie Group and Luxembourg then
appealed to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
Background Documents
454/21 P
There will be
press release
covering the
two opinions
Thursday 4
Opinion
in Case
148/22 Commune d’Ans
Social Policy
This case concerns
the issue of the wearing of religious symbols in the public space, in
educational institutions and in the workplace.
Similarly to previous cases before the
court it concerns the issue of
whether an employer has the right to impose restrictions
on employees in the course of their work.
The present reference for a preliminary ruling, submitted by the Labour Court of Liège
(Belgium), is in line with these cases, but with the particularity that, this time, the
prohibition on wearing religious symbols in the workplace comes not from a privat
employer but from a public employer, in this case a commune.
Background Documents
148/22
There will be
a press release
in this case.
to 12
onday 9
urope
ay is a public holiday in
uxembourg.
ourt of
ustice will be
holding an
ay on this day.
isitors can visit the
ourt
both
physically
virtually and discove
r how it works.
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
Wednesday 10
General Court
Judgment in
Joined Cases T
34/21 Ryanair v Commission (Lufthansa; Covid
19) &
87/21 Condor Flugdienst v Commission (Lufthansa; Covid
State aid
On 12 June 2020, the Federal Republic of Germany notified the European Commission
of individual aid in the form of a recapitalisation of
6 billion granted to Deutsche
Lufthansa AG. This recapitalisation, which was part of a wider support package for the
Lufthansa group, was aimed at restoring the balance sheet position and liquidity of the
Lufthansa group companies in the exceptional situation caused by the COVID
pandemic.
The measure in question consisted of three separate elements, namely a capital
participation of approximately
300 million, a silent participation not convertible into
shares of approximately
billion
and a silent participation of
1 billion with the
characteristics of a convertible bond.
Without opening the formal investigat
ion procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, the
under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Communication on the temporary framework for
State aid measures to support the economy in th
esent context of the COVID
The airlines Ryanair DAC and Condor Flugdienst GmbH brought two actions for
annulment of that decision
Background Documents
34/21
Background Documents
37/21
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 11
Judgment in Case C
Bezirkshauptmannschaft
Lilienfeld
Transport
Union law provides that transport undertakings must satis
fy a requirement of good
repute
. In particular, neither the undertaking nor its transport manager or another
“relevant person” designated by the Member State concerned must
have been
convicted of a serious criminal offence or have had a penalty imposed on them for
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
serious infringements of Union law in relation to drivers’ driving and rest periods,
working time or the installation and use of recording equipment. Such convictio
ns or
sanctions may lead to the loss of good repute of the undertaking and the withdrawal
of the authorisation to engage in the oc
cupation of transport operator.
An Austrian transport company, in accordance with its national legislation, appointed a
“resp
onsible employee”, who was responsible for the observance of wor
king time
within the company
. This person was neither a transport manager nor an authorised
representative of the company vis
vis third parties. Nor did he have any significant
influence on
the manageme
nt of the company.
She is challenging before an Austrian
court several fines imposed on her by the administration for the violation of the rules
on daily driving hours and the
use of the tachograph.
According to this court, the appointment as a responsible employee transfers criminal
liability for the offences in question to that person. Moreover, under Austrian law, the
conduct of the person so appointed could not be taken into account in assessing
down by Union law.
The Austrian court wonders whether, in such circumstances, such
an appointment is compatible with Union law.
Background Documents
155/22
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 11
Judgment in Case C
155/22
Bezirkshauptmannschaft Lilienfeld
Transport
Union law provides that transport undertakings must satis
fy a requirement of good
repute
. In particular, neither the undertaking nor its transport manager or another
“relevant person” designated by the Member State concerned must have been
convicted of a
serious criminal offence or have had a penalty imposed on them for
serious infringements of Union law in relation to drivers’ driving and rest periods,
working time or the installation and use of recording equipment. Such convictions or
sanctions may lead
to the loss of good repute of the undertaking and the withdrawal
of the authorisation to engage in the oc
cupation of transport operator.
An Austrian transport company, in accordance with its national legislation, appointed a
“responsible employee”, who w
as responsible for the observance of wor
king time
within the company
. This person was neither a transport manager nor an authorised
representative of the company vis
vis third parties. Nor did he have any significant
influence on the manageme
nt of the co
mpany.
She is challenging before an Austrian
court several fines imposed on her by the administration for the violation of the rules
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
on daily driving hours and the
use of the tachograph.
According to this court, the appointment as a responsible employee t
ransfers criminal
liability for the offences in question to that person. Moreover, under Austrian law, the
conduct of the person so appointed could not be taken into account in assessing
whether the undertaking in question satisfied the requirement of good
repute laid
down by Union law.
The Austrian court wonders whether, in such circumstances, such
an appointment is compatible with Union law.
Background Documents
155/22
There will be
a press release
in this case.
Thursday 11
Judgment in C
817/21 Inspec?ia Judiciar?
Principles of Community law
Extract from AG Collins’ Opinion of the 26 January
The Inspec?ia Judiciar? (Judicial Inspectorate, Romania) is the judicial body responsible
for the conduct of disciplinary investigations and the commencement of disciplinary
proceedings against judges and prosecutors in Romania. Under the rules gove
rning
the Judicial Inspectorate, the Chief Inspector appoints the Deputy Chief Inspector at his
and coincides with that of the Chief Inspector; and all Judicial Inspector
s are
subordinate to the Chief Inspector upon whom the progress of their careers depends.
R.I.
made several complaints against judges and prosecutors engaged in criminal
proceedings against her to the Judicial Inspectorate. The Judicial
Inspectorate
dismissed her complaints. The Chief Inspector confirmed the decisions of the Judicial
Inspectorate. The applicant proceeded to challenge those decisions before the courts
of Romania. In the context of those proceedings the Curtea de Apel Bucur
e?ti (Court of
Inspectorate, must offer the same guarantees of independence and impartiality as are
required of courts under EU law
In particular, it asks whether, in the
light of the rules described above, EU law
precludes national legislation or regulations that make the Deputy Chief Inspector of
the Judicial Inspectorate responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints
made against the Chief Inspector of the Ju
dicial Inspectorate and any disciplinary
investigations and proceedings that might arise therefrom.
�� Newsletter
Weeks XVIII
XIX: 1
to 12
May 2023
Background Documents
817/21
There will be
a press release
in this case.
EARINGS
RESTRICTIVE
MEASURES
UKRAINE
ver the next two weeks,
he following hearings will be held in cases concerning the
restrictive measures related to the war in
Ukraine
uesday 2
hudaverdyan v
ouncil
ednesday 3
nd 14
imchenko
ouncil