do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-98/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2020 — mBank S.A. v PA
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence








C_2020137EN.01004001.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/40






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2020 — mBank S.A. v PA
(Case C-98/20)
(2020/C 137/56)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodni soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: mBank S.A.

Defendant: PA

Questions referred







1.


Does the term ‘consumer’s domicile’ within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 2015, mean the consumer’s domicile as at the date on which the application was lodged or as at the date on which the relationship of obligation arose between the consumer and his contractual partner (i.e., for example, as at the date of the conclusion of a contract), that is, will an agreement be a consumer contract as provided for in Article 17(1)(c) of the Regulation cited even in the event that the consumer has, as at the date on which the application was lodged, his domicile in a Member State other than that in which the consumer’s contractual partner pursues commercial or professional activities?










2.


Can a consumer having his domicile in another Member State under Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 2015, be sued in a court of the place where the obligation concerned was or should have been fulfilled (regardless of Article 18(2) and Article 26(2) of the Regulation) due to the fact that the consumer’s contractual party does not pursue commercial or professional activities in the State in which the consumer’s domicile is located as at the date of lodgment of the application?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2020 – EAC/A02/2019 – Erasmus+ Programme (Official Journal of the European Union C 373 of 5 November 2019) 2020/C 63/07
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, educational exchange, innovation, invitation to tender, student mobility, young person, youth exchange scheme, youth policy








C_2020063EN.01002901.xml










26.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/29






Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2020 – EAC/A02/2019 – Erasmus+ Programme

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 373 of 5 November 2019
)

(2020/C 63/07)
On page 13, in point 3 – Eligibility:
for:
‘The following Programme Countries can fully take part in all Erasmus+ Programme actions (1):






—


the Member States of the European Union,










—


the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway,










—


EU candidate countries: Turkey, North Macedonia and Serbia.’,




read:
‘The following Programme Countries can fully take part in all Erasmus+ Programme actions (1):






—


the Member States of the European Union (2),










—


the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway,










—


EU candidate countries: Turkey, North Macedonia and Serbia.’;




for:

‘For British applicants: Please be aware that eligibility criteria must be complied with for the entire duration of the grant. If the United Kingdom withdraws from the EU during the grant period without concluding an agreement with the EU ensuring in particular that British applicants continue to be eligible, you will cease to receive EU funding (while continuing, where possible, to participate) or be required to leave the project on the basis of the relevant provisions of the grant agreement on termination.’,

read:

‘For UK applicants: Please be aware that following the entry into force of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement (3) on 1 February 2020 and in particular Articles 127(6), 137 and 138, the references to natural or legal persons residing or established in a Member State of the European Union are to be understood as including natural or legal persons residing or established in the United Kingdom. UK residents and entities are therefore eligible to participate under this call.’.



(1)  Jean Monnet activities are open to organisations from the whole world

(2)  Under the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF 2014-2020), the ongoing Erasmus+ programme will be implemented in relation to the UK or entities or persons established in the UK as if the UK remained a Member State, without disruption until the closure of the programme, in accordance with the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK.

(3)  Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9725 — Ardian/Groupe Cérélia) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 419/04
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bakery, consultancy, economic concentration, food production, investment company, merger control, pasta








C_2020419EN.01001401.xml










4.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/14






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9725 — Ardian/Groupe Cérélia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 419/04)
On 26 February 2020, 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 French 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 32020M9725. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-630/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — PAGE International Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 176 — Exclusion from the right to deduct — Acquisition of food services — Standstill clause — Accession to the European Union)
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, accession to the European Union, catering, economic activity, expenditure, principle of proportionality, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2020304EN.01000201.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/2






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — PAGE International Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-630/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 176 - Exclusion from the right to deduct - Acquisition of food services - Standstill clause - Accession to the European Union)
(2020/C 304/02)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PAGE International Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, after the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union, reduces the scope of expenditure excluded from the right to deduct value added tax by authorising, under certain conditions, partial deduction of value added tax on such expenses, including inter alia those relating to food, even where the taxable person asserts that those expenses were entirely assigned to the exercise of his or her taxable economic activity.


(1)  OJ C 389, 11.11.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 25 February 2020 2020/C 63/01
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020063EN.01000101.xml










26.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2020
(2020/C 63/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0840 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,92 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4701 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83630 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5688 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0605 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1600 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,226 




HUF


Hungarian forint


337,41 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3012 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8098 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6688 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6442 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4403 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4445 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7160 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5166 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,68 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4649 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6045 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4567 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 094,70 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5886 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,360 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7943 




THB


Thai baht


34,390 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7569 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6185 




INR


Indian rupee


77,7240 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-788/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd, v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Games of chance — Taxation — Principle of non-discrimination — Single tax on betting)
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, equal treatment, establishment, freedom to provide services, game of chance, gaming establishment, tax, tax system








C_2020137EN.01002002.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/20






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd, v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma
(Case C-788/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Games of chance - Taxation - Principle of non-discrimination - Single tax on betting)
(2020/C 137/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that makes data transmission centres (DTCs) established in that Member State liable to a tax on betting jointly and severally with betting operators, their clients, which are established in another Member State, irrespective of where those operators are established and the absence of a licence to organise betting.


(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9547 — Johnson & Johnson/Tachosil) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 63/04
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2020063EN.01000501.xml










26.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9547 — Johnson & Johnson/Tachosil)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 63/04)

1.   
On 19 February 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. (1)

This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Johnson & Johnson (‘J&J’, US),










—


Topaz Investment AS (‘Topaz’, Norway), a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG, ultimately owned by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Japan).




J&J acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Topaz.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.
The concentration has been referred to the Commission by the German Bundeskartellamt pursuant to Article 22 (3) of the Merger Regulation. The referral was subsequently joined by Spain, France, Austria, Finland and Norway.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for J&J: a global group of companies whose activities are divided into three business sectors: consumer; pharmaceuticals; and medical devices,










—


for Topaz: an entity holding the majority of the rights, assets and obligations connected to the haemostatic patch product TachoSil (and its predecessor products).






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9547 – Johnson & Johnson/Tachosil
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case C-100/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 February 2020 — XY v Hauptzollamt B
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, environmental tax, interest, national implementing measure, national law, tax exemption, tax law








C_2020209EN.01000701.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 February 2020 — XY v Hauptzollamt B
(Case C-100/20)
(2020/C 209/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XY

Defendant: Hauptzollamt B

Question referred

Is interest payable under EU law in respect of an entitlement to a refund of incorrectly assessed electricity tax if the assessment of the electricity tax in a lower amount was based on the optional tax reduction pursuant to Article 17(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) and the tax assessment in too high an amount was based solely on an error in the application of the national provision adopted to transpose Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.
Case T-141/20: Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer information, eco-label, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, equal treatment, household electrical appliance, labelling, marketing standard, principle of legal certainty








C_2020161EN.01005101.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/51






Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission
(Case T-141/20)
(2020/C 161/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Applia — Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt, L. Salernitano and K. Olsthoorn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the following parts of the contested act: (i) paragraph 3(2)(a) of Annex IX in the part where it states that ‘declared values’ correspond to those ‘values given in the technical documentation’; and (iii) paragraph 3(2)(b) of Annex IX;










—


annul Table 8 on ‘Verification tolerances for measured parameters’ of Annex IX in the part where it contains parameters that are included in Annex VI and are not listed in Annex V, namely: ‘E16, E32’ and ‘Eaux’;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2016 (1).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the contested act violates Articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Framework Regulation (2) and the Commission acted ultra vires by introducing inconsistent requirements as regards the technical documentation suppliers have to upload in the database and the verification procedure market surveillance authorities are entitled to carry out.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty and of equality of treatment because it fails to establish a clear and univocal regulatory framework putting the suppliers in the impossibility to determine their duties, as regards the data to be provided in the technical documentation; and the applicable verification procedure to assess the accuracy of the data.






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2016 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of refrigerating appliances and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1060/2010 (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 102).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9729 – Bouygues Telecom/Phoenix Tower International/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 100/04
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2020100EN.01000401.xml










27.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9729 – Bouygues Telecom/Phoenix Tower International/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 100/04)
On 26 February 2020, 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 French 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 32020M9729. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-139/20: Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission
Date: 2020-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer information, eco-label, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, equal treatment, household electrical appliance, labelling, marketing standard, principle of legal certainty








C_2020161EN.01004902.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/49






Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission
(Case T-139/20)
(2020/C 161/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Applia — Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt, L. Salernitano and K. Olsthoorn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the following parts of the contested act: (i) Articles 1(b) and 2(b) of Annex VI in the part where they provide that ‘these values are considered as the declared values for the purpose of the verification procedure in Annex IX’; (ii) paragraph 2(a) of Annex IX in the part where it states that ‘declared values’ correspond to those ‘values given in the technical documentation’; and (iii) paragraph 2(b) of Annex IX;










—


annul Table 9 on ‘Verification tolerances’ of Annex IX in the part where it contains parameters that are included in Annex VI and are not listed in Annex V, namely: ‘EW, full, EW,½, EW,¼, EWD, full, EWD,½’ and ‘WW, full, WW,½ WW, ¼, WWD, full, WWD,½’; and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014 (1).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the contested act violates Articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Framework Regulation (2) and the Commission acted ultra vires by introducing inconsistent requirements as regards the technical documentation suppliers have to upload in the database and the verification procedure market surveillance authorities are entitled to carry out.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty and of equality of treatment because it fails to establish a clear and univocal regulatory framework putting the suppliers in the impossibility to determine their duties, as regards the data to be provided in the technical documentation; and the applicable verification procedure to assess the accuracy of the data.






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household washing machines and household washer-dryers and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1061/2010 and Commission Directive 96/60/EC (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 29).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).