do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-146/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SCT d.d., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Refusal — Non-payment — Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Direct effect)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, claim, direct applicability, financial solvency, principle of proportionality, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2020271EN.01001401.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/14






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SCT d.d., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-146/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Taxable amount - Reduction - Refusal - Non-payment - Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Direct effect)
(2020/C 271/19)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SCT d.d., in liquidation

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person is refused the right to a reduction of the value added tax paid in respect of an irrecoverable claim where he has failed to lodge that claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor, even though the taxable person has shown that, had he lodged the claim, he would not have been able to recover it;










2.


Article 90(1) of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that national courts are required, by virtue of their obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of that provision, to interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any national legislation the application of which would lead to a result contrary to that provision.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case C-258/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 1 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 June 2020 — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: additional benefit, early retirement, equal treatment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social security legislation, woman








C_2020320EN.01000701.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 June 2020 — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
(Case C-258/20)
(2020/C 320/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HV

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Question referred

Is Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 60(4) TRLGSS), which provides that women who have had at least two biological or adopted children and are recipients of contributory retirement pensions are entitled to a pension supplement, whereas other women who are in identical circumstances and who, as a result of the fact that they are women, are faced with identical difficulties as regards remaining in the employment market, are not entitled to such a retirement pension supplement because they have taken voluntary early retirement which, by law, is subject to greater contribution conditions than an ordinary pension and identical or very similar age conditions?


(1)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
Case C-259/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-81/18, Barata v Parliament
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, in-service training, promotion, rights of the defence








C_2021035EN.01001802.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/18






Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-81/18, Barata v Parliament
(Case C-259/20 P)
(2021/C 35/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by: G. Pandey, avocat, D. Rovetta, avocat, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
By order of 3 December 2020, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) decided that the appeal should be dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Case T-652/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Development Fund, Internet site, access to information, award of contract, financial legislation, principle of proportionality, public procurement, right to justice, sanction (EU), works contract








C_2020255EN.01001801.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/18






Order of the President of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission
(Case T-652/19 R)
(Interim measures - Public works contracts - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
(2020/C 255/23)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia, S.A. (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, R. Campos, A. Dias Henriques, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2019 excluding the applicant for a period of three years from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) in the context of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (OJ 2015 L 58, p. 17) and ordering the publication of the notification of exclusion on the Commission’s website.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application for interim measures.










2.


Reserves the costs.
Case C-19/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims — Directive 76/308/EEC — Article 6(2) and Article 10 — Directive 2008/55/EC — Second paragraph of Article 6 and Article 10 — Tax claim of requesting Member State recovered by requested Member State — Status of that claim — Concept of ‘privilege’ — Statutory set-off of that claim against tax debt of requested Member State)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF, European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, claim, mutual assistance, tax collection








C_2020271EN.01001001.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/10






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation
(Case C-19/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims - Directive 76/308/EEC - Article 6(2) and Article 10 - Directive 2008/55/EC - Second paragraph of Article 6 and Article 10 - Tax claim of requesting Member State recovered by requested Member State - Status of that claim - Concept of ‘privilege’ - Statutory set-off of that claim against tax debt of requested Member State)
(2020/C 271/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: État belge

Respondent: Pantochim SA, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and the second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the claim of the requesting Member State is not to be treated as being a claim of the requested Member State and does not acquire the status of a claim of the requested Member State.










2.


Article 10 of Directive 76/308 and Article 10 of Directive 2008/55 must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the term ‘privilege’ referred to in those provisions refers to any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrent claims, in the preferential payment of a claim;










—


the option available to the requested Member State to set off claims in the event of concurrent claims constitutes a privilege, within the meaning of those provisions, where the use of that option has the effect of conferring on that Member State a preferential right or right of priority for the purposes of payment of its claims that is not available to the other creditors, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.










(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9842 – Hitachi Chemical Company/Fiamm Energy Technology) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 196/05
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advanced technology industry, economic concentration, electricity storage device, electronics industry, merger control








C_2020196EN.01001501.xml










11.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 196/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9842 – Hitachi Chemical Company/Fiamm Energy Technology)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 196/05)

1.   
On 2 June 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Hitachi Chemical Company Ltd. (‘HCC’, Japan), controlled by Showa Denko K.K. (‘SDK’, Japan),










—


Fiamm Energy Technology S.p.A (‘FET’, Italy).




HCC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of FET.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for HCC: the production of functional materials such as electronics materials, inorganic materials, polymer science materials and printed wiring board materials and the production of advanced components and systems, such as automotive products, energy storage devices, electronics components and other diagnostic agents and instruments,










—


for FET: the production and distribution of lead acid starter batteries and stationary batteries. FET is currently jointly controlled by HCC and Elettra 1938 S.p.A. (‘Elettra’, Italy).






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.9842 – Hitachi Chemical Company/Fiamm Energy Technology
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 10 June 2020 2020/C 196/03
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020196EN.01001201.xml










11.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 196/12






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 June 2020
(2020/C 196/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1375 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,16 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4553 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88963 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4605 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0762 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5383 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,609 




HUF


Hungarian forint


343,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4524 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8349 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7145 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6220 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5228 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8157 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7357 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5746 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,17 




ZAR


South African rand


18,8376 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0305 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5690 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 022,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8361 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,767 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,1468 




THB


Thai baht


35,422 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5213 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,8255 




INR


Indian rupee


85,9030 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-219/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Procurement procedure for the award of a service contract — Architectural and engineering services — Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) — National legislation limiting participation solely to economic operators in certain legal forms)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: architecture, award of contract, civil engineering, non-profit organisation, provision of services, public procurement, services contract, tendering, type of business








C_2020271EN.01001502.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/15






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)
(Case C-219/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Procurement procedure for the award of a service contract - Architectural and engineering services - Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) - National legislation limiting participation solely to economic operators in certain legal forms)
(2020/C 271/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that prevents non-profit-making entities from being able to take part in a procurement procedure for the award of a public contract for engineering and architectural services, even though those entities are entitled under national law to offer the services covered by the contract in question.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case C-115/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Groupement des cartes bancaires (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue — Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020271EN.01001301.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/13






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Groupement des cartes bancaires
(Case C-115/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue - Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark)
(2020/C 271/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: China Construction Bank Corp. (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Groupement des cartes bancaires (represented by: C. Herissay-Ducamp, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 December 2018, China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (T-665/17, EU:T:2018:879);










2.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1);










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance;










4.


Orders the Groupement des cartes bancaires to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-114/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Danilo Di Bernardo (Appeal — Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to tests — Possible for the administration to supplement before the Court the statement of reasons for the decision not to admit — Conditions — Exceptional cases — Concept of ‘absence of a statement of reasons’)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2020329EN.01000201.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/2






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Danilo Di Bernardo
(Case C-114/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Possible for the administration to supplement before the Court the statement of reasons for the decision not to admit - Conditions - Exceptional cases - Concept of ‘absence of a statement of reasons’)
(2020/C 329/02)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Danilo Di Bernardo (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case T-362/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metalworking, organisation of transport, packaging, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law, travel








C_2020255EN.01002901.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/29






Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)
(Case T-362/20)
(2020/C 255/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Acciona, SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by J. C. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agencia Negociadora PB, SL (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Word mark REACCIONA — European Union trade mark No 8 605 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 652/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, in the event that it appears before the Court and contests the present action, the intervener to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.