ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Vittamed technologijos’, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-293/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deductions of input VAT - Goods and services used by the taxable person to produce capital goods - Articles 184 to 187 - Adjustment of deductions - Obligation to adjust deductions of VAT in the event of that taxable person being placed in liquidation and removed from the register of VAT payers)

(2022/C 451/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UAB ‘Vittamed technologijos’, in liquidation

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

intervener: Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person is under an obligation to adjust deductions of input value added tax (VAT) relating to the acquisition of goods or services intended to produce capital goods in the case where, as a result of the decision of the owner or sole shareholder of that taxable person to place it in liquidation and of the taxable person’s request to be removed, and it being removed, from the register of VAT payers, the capital goods produced have not been used — and will never be used — in the course of taxable economic activities. The reasons for the decision to place that taxable person in liquidation and, consequently, for the abandonment of the intended taxable economic activity, such as constantly growing losses, the absence of orders and the doubts of the taxable person’s shareholder as to the profitability of the intended economic activity, have no bearing on the taxable person’s obligation to adjust the deductions of VAT concerned, in so far as that taxable person no longer has — and will never have — any intention of using the capital goods for the purposes of taxable transactions.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21)

(Joined Cases C-245/21 and C-248/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Articles 27 and 29 - Transfer of the person concerned to the Member State responsible for the examination of his or her request - Suspension of the transfer due to the COVID-19 pandemic - Impossibility of carrying out the transfer - Judicial protection - Consequences for the time limit for transfer)

(2022/C 424/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat (Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community)

Defendants: MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(4) and Article 29(1) of 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

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the time limit for transfer provided for in the latter provision is not interrupted where the competent authorities of a Member State adopt, on the basis of Article 27(4) of that regulation, a revocable decision to suspend the implementation of a transfer decision on the grounds that such implementation is materially impossible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto do Cinema e do Audiovisual IP v NOWO Communications SA

(Case C-411/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Services consisting in the creation and production of cinematographic and audiovisual works - Operators of subscription television services - Subscription fee payable by subscription television operators - Allocation of the revenue from the fee - Restriction - Effects too uncertain or too indirect)

(2022/C 472/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Instituto do Cinema e do Audiovisual IP

Defendant: NOWO Communications SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation introducing a fee intended to finance the promotion and dissemination of cinematographic and audiovisual works, provided that any effects of that fee on the freedom to provide services for the production of such works are too uncertain and indirect to constitute a restriction within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Liberty Lines SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-437/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 1 - Direct award of public service contracts - Public services for high-speed maritime passenger transport - Treatment like railway transport services provided by sea)

(2022/C 463/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Liberty Lines SpA

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Intervening parties: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA, Bluferries Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), in particular Article 1(1) and Article 4(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation whose purpose is to treat maritime transport services like rail transport services, where the effect of such treatment is to exclude the service in question from the application of the rules on public procurement applicable to it.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VP Capital NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-414/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 and 54 TFEU - Transfer of a company’s registered office to a Member State other than that in which it was incorporated - Recovery of write-downs recorded prior to the transfer - Exemption - Comparability of situations)

(2023/C 7/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VP Capital NV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU does not preclude national tax legislation under which increases in value of shares in companies recorded by a company in a Member State, after the transfer of its registered office in that Member State, are treated as being expressed but unrealised capital gains, without taking into account whether those shares gave rise to the recording of write-downs by that company on a date on which it was a taxable resident of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Soda-Club (CO2) SA, SodaStream International BV v MySoda Oy

(Case C-197/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade-mark law - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 15(2) - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Article 15(2) - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark - Cylinders containing carbon dioxide - Placing on the market in a Member State by the trade mark proprietor - Activity of a reseller consisting in refilling and relabelling cylinders - Opposition brought by the trade mark proprietor - Legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation of the goods bearing the trade mark)

(2022/C 472/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Soda-Club (CO2) SA, SodaStream International BV

Defendant: MySoda Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark and Article 15(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks

must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark who has put on the market, in a Member State, goods bearing that mark and intended to be re-used and refilled many times, is not entitled, under those provisions, to oppose further commercialisation of those goods, in that Member State, by a reseller who has refilled them and has replaced the label, on which the original mark appeared, by another labelling, while leaving the original mark on those goods, unless that new labelling creates a false impression in the minds of consumers that there is an economic connection between the reseller and the trade mark proprietor. That likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally in the light of the information appearing on the product and its new labelling and having regard to the distribution practices of the sector concerned and the level of knowledge that consumers have of those practices.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Tilman SA v Unilever Supply Chain Company AG

(Case C-358/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Jurisdiction clause - Formal requirements - Clause included in the general terms and conditions - General terms and conditions which may be viewed and printed from a hypertext link mentioned in a contract concluded in writing - Consent of the parties)

(2023/C 24/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Tilman SA

Respondent: Unilever Supply Chain Company AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) and (2) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008,

must be interpreted as meaning that

a jurisdiction clause is validly concluded where it is contained in the general terms and conditions to which the contract concluded in writing refers by the inclusion of a hypertext link to a website, access to which allows those general terms and conditions to be viewed, downloaded and printed prior to that contract being signed, without the party against whom that clause operates having been formally asked to accept those general terms and conditions by ticking a box on that website.

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Avicarvil Farms SRL v Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea

(Case C-443/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Article 40 - National rural development programme 2007-2013 - Animal welfare payments - Calculation errors - Reductions in payments by the national authorities - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty)

(2023/C 15/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Avicarvil Farms SRL

Defendants: Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea

Operative part of the judgment

Article 40(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009, and Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, read in conjunction with Article 310(5) TFEU, and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty

must be interpreted as

not precluding the national authorities involved in the implementation of a non-repayable financial support measure from adopting, on account of a calculation error found by the European Court of Auditors, acts ordering a reduction in the amount of financial aid granted under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) Rural Development Programme for Romania for the 2007 to 2013 programming period, as approved by the European Commission, without waiting for the Commission to adopt a decision excluding the amounts resulting from that calculation error from EU financing.

(1) OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach — Germany) — LSI — Germany GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-595/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Provision of food information to consumers - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Article 17 and point 4 of Part A of Annex VI - ‘Name of the food’ - ‘Name of the product’ - Mandatory particulars in food labelling - Component or ingredient used for the partial or whole substitution of the component or ingredient which consumers expect to see normally used or present in a food)

(2023/C 35/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LSI — Germany GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, in conjunction with point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation No 1169/2011,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the expression ‘name of the product’ in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI does not have a separate meaning that is different from that of the expression ‘name of the food’, as referred to in Article 17(1) of that regulation, with the result that the special labelling requirements provided for in point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to that regulation do not apply to the ‘name protected as intellectual property’, the ‘brand name’ or the ‘fancy name’ as referred to in Article 17(4) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — DOMUS-Software-AG v Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

(Case C-370/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Compensation for recovery costs incurred by the creditor due to late payment by the debtor - Article 6 - Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 - Several late payments for periodic supplies of goods or services under a single contract)

(2023/C 35/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DOMUS-Software-AG

Defendant: Marc Braschoß Immobilien GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

where a single contract provides for periodic deliveries of goods or provision of services, each requiring payment within a specified period, the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 by way of compensation for recovery costs is payable to the creditor for each late payment.

(1) OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.
1.

Article 24(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that: the decision to postpone a surrender referred to in that provision constitutes a decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant which, pursuant to Article 6(2) of that framework decision, must be taken by the executing judicial authority. Where such a decision has not been taken by that authority and the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) of that framework decision have expired, the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant must be released, in accordance with Article 23(5) of that same framework decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/24

Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-423/06) (1)

(2008/C 92/46)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/38

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne

(Case C-269/06) (1)

(2008/C 51/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/22

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-270/06) (1)

(2008/C 313/34)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/26

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, Germany) — Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel

(Case C-99/06) (1)

(2008/C 128/48)

Language of the case: German

The President of the First Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/39

Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-190/07) (1)

(2008/C 51/67)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/39

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-145/07) (1)

(2008/C 22/70)

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/23

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-65/07) (1)

(2008/C 79/42)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/32

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-210/07) (1)

(2008/C 64/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/28

Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-422/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/28

Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-469/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/61)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/38

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-511/07) (1)

(2008/C 209/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/30

Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-347/07) (1)

(2008/C 171/53)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/18

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 October 2008 — Cain Cellars, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-508/07 P) (1)

(2009/C 6/32)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/32

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-419/07) (1)

(2008/C 285/55)

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.