do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-184/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Hecta Viticol SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC — Rates of excise duty on wine and still fermented beverages other than wine and beer — Differentiated rates of excise duty — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, excise duty, principle of legal certainty








C_2020240EN.01001902.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/19






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Hecta Viticol SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi
(Case C-184/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC - Rates of excise duty on wine and still fermented beverages other than wine and beer - Differentiated rates of excise duty - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)
(2020/C 240/25)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Hecta Viticol SRL

Respondents: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Galaţi

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 7, 11 and 15 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Article 5 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that identical rates of excise duty be fixed on alcoholic beverages in the category ‘wine’, within the meaning of Directive 92/83, and on those in the category ‘fermented beverages other than wine and beer’, within the meaning of that directive.










2.


The principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation amending the rate of excise duty on fermented beverages other than wine and beer without laying down transitional arrangements, where such amendment enters into force eight days after the publication of the act on which it is based and where it does not mean that taxable persons carry out consequential economic adjustments, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Communication in accordance with Article 34(7)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on decisions relating to binding information issued by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature 2020/C 142/01
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, customs regulations, harmonisation of standards, tariff nomenclature








C_2020142EN.01000101.xml










30.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/1






Communication in accordance with Article 34(7)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on decisions relating to binding information issued by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature
(2020/C 142/01)
The customs authorities shall revoke decisions relating to binding information from this day if they become incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:
Classification Decisions, Classification Opinions or amendments to the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, adopted by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC document No NC2692 – report of the 64th session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER AN ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS AND DECISIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WCO

(64th SESSION OF THE HSC – September 2019)
DOC. NC2692

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention







21.06


P/10




Chapter 29 – Annex – 48


P/1




30.03


P/10




30.04


P/10




39.23


P/11




39.24


P/11




39.26


P/11




72.04


P/7




73.23


P/11




73.26


P/11




87.16


P/11





Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee








2106.90/38


 


P/2




2309.90/8


 


P/2




2936.23/1


 


P/2




2936.28/2-3


 


P/2




2936.29/3


 


P/2




3003.20/1-2


 


P/3




3822.00/2


 


P/4




3921.90/4


 


P/5




3924.90/7


 


P/6




7323.99/1


 


P/6




9022.90/1


 


P/8




9403.90/1


 


P/9




Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-common-customs-tariff/harmonized-system-general-information_en
Case C-560/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exceptions to the right of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — Documents concerning pending infringement proceedings — Detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Request for access — Refusal — Disclosure of documents requested in the course of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Disclosure — Inadmissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Continuation)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, disclosure of information, infringement procedure (EU)








C_2020240EN.01000401.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland
(Case C-560/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - Documents concerning pending infringement proceedings - Detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Request for access - Refusal - Disclosure of documents requested in the course of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Disclosure - Inadmissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Continuation)
(2020/C 240/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (represented by: P. Hoffman, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Spina, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: D. Lutostańska and M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 57/2020 of 30 April 2020 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/482]
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, adjuvant, food safety, foodstuff, health risk, market approval, packaging product, plastics, revision of an agreement, toxic substance




L_2023072EN.01001801.xml










9.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 72/18








            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 57/2020
of 30 April 2020
         
amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/482]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/988 of 17 June 2019 correcting the French language version of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


This Decision concerns legislation regarding foodstuffs. Legislation regarding foodstuffs shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the introduction to Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein.












(3)


Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following indent is added in point 55 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:






‘—



32019 R 0988: Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/988 of 17 June 2019 (OJ L 160, 18.6.2019, p. 10).’






Article 2
The text of Regulation (EU) 2019/988 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 May 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*)



Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 30 April 2020.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Clara GANSLANDT
            





(1)  
            OJ L 160, 18.6.2019, p. 10.

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.
Joined Cases C-608/18 P, C-609/18 P and C-767/18 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Papouis Dairies Ltd, Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd, M.J. Dairies EOOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Invalidity of the mark cited by the opposing party — Appeals which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01001501.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/15






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Papouis Dairies Ltd, Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd, M.J. Dairies EOOD
(Joined Cases C-608/18 P, C-609/18 P and C-767/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Invalidity of the mark cited by the opposing party - Appeals which have become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 287/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, H. O’Neill and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Papouis Dairies Ltd (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros), Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros), M.J. Dairies EOOD (represented by: D. Dimitrova, advocate)

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the appeals.










2.


The Republic of Cyprus shall pay the costs of the appeals.






(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Joined Cases C-168/19 and C-169/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 21 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Article 18 TFEU — Convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Public sector workers — Pensioner residing in a Member State other than that paying retirement pension and who does not have the nationality of the Member State of residence — Income tax — Alleged loss of tax advantages — Alleged impediment to freedom of movement and alleged discrimination)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, double taxation, freedom of movement, nationality, pension scheme, personal income tax, public service employee, residence, retired person, tax relief








C_2020240EN.01001901.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/19






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale
(Joined Cases C-168/19 and C-169/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 21 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Article 18 TFEU - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Public sector workers - Pensioner residing in a Member State other than that paying retirement pension and who does not have the nationality of the Member State of residence - Income tax - Alleged loss of tax advantages - Alleged impediment to freedom of movement and alleged discrimination)
(2020/C 240/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19)

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU do not preclude a tax regime resulting from a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded between two Member States, pursuant to which the powers of taxation of those States in relation to the taxation of retirement pensions are allocated according to whether the recipients of those pensions were in employment in the private sector or the public sector and, in the latter case, according to whether or not they are nationals of the Member State of residence.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case C-191/20 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2020 by Tiziano Vizzone against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2020 in Case T-658/19 Vizzone v Commission
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, equivalence of diplomas, freedom to provide services, lawyer, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment








C_2021028EN.01001001.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/10






Appeal brought on 30 April 2020 by Tiziano Vizzone against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2020 in Case T-658/19 Vizzone v Commission
(Case C-191/20 P)
(2021/C 28/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Tiziano Vizzone (represented by: M. Bettani, S. Brovelli)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 25 November 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Mr Tiziano Vizzone to bear his own costs.
Case C-810/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheading 8525 80 91 — Digital cameras — Video camera recorders — Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, recording equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2020240EN.01001401.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/14






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR
(Case C-810/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 8525 80 91 - Digital cameras - Video camera recorders - Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels)
(2020/C 240/18)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that digital video camera recorders having a dual function, that is to say, to capture and record both still images and sequences of video, come under subheading 8525 80 91 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘video camera recorders’, even though, with regard to sequences of video, those cameras allow such sequences to be captured and recorded only with an image resolution quality lower than 800 × 600 pixels, provided that the principal function of those digital video camera recorders is to capture and record such sequences, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case T-868/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission (Interim measures — REACH — Dimethyl ether substance — Compliance check — Commission decision — Obligation to provide certain information requiring testing on animals — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal experimentation, chemical product, chemicals legislation, health risk, market approval, principle of proportionality, research method, toxic substance








C_2020201EN.01002402.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/24






Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission
(Case T-868/19 R)
(Interim measures - REACH - Dimethyl ether substance - Compliance check - Commission decision - Obligation to provide certain information requiring testing on animals - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2020/C 201/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Nouryon Industrial Chemicals BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Knoell NL BV (Maarssen, Netherlands), Grillo-Werke AG (Duisburg, Germany), PCC Trade & Services GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: R. Cana and G. David, lawyers, and Z. Romata, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7336 final of 16 October 2019 on the compliance check of a registration of dimethyl ether referred by the European Chemicals Agency to the Commission pursuant to Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), and, secondly, the grant of any other interim measures which the Court considers appropriate.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.