do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-366/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 5 August 2020 — CZ v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya (TEAR de Catalunya)
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, equal treatment, exchange of information, free movement of capital, freedom of movement, personal income tax, principle of proportionality, residence, tax collection, tax law








C_2020359EN.01000601.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 5 August 2020 — CZ v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya (TEAR de Catalunya)
(Case C-366/20)
(2020/C 359/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice, Catalonia, Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CZ

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya (Regional Tax Tribunal of Catalonia) (TEAR de Catalunya)

Questions referred









1.


Is a provision of national law such as Article 39(2) of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas (Income Tax Law) 35/2006 of 28 November 2006, as amended by Article 3(2) of Law 7/2012 of 29 October 2012, which ‘in all cases’ classes [goods, assets or rights] as ‘unjustified capital gains’, on which tax must be paid in the earliest period which has not yet become time-barred, in the event of failure to comply with the formal aspects of the requirement to provide information via ‘Form 720’ on goods located abroad or rights and assets deposited abroad, or where the information is submitted late, without having regard to the rules on limitation established in the Ley General Tributaria (General Tax Law) 58/2003, other than in the cases of ‘declared income’ or income arising in periods during which the individual was not a tax resident in Spain, contrary to EU law, specifically Articles 63 and 65 TFEU and the fundamental principles of free movement, equal treatment and non-discrimination?












2.


If the reply is in the negative, on the grounds that it is proportionate, is a provision of national law such as Article 39(2) of the Income Tax Law 35/2006 of 28 November 2006, which has the consequences set out above, contrary to EU law, specifically Articles 63 and 65 TFEU and the fundamental principles of free movement, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality, where the income in question has been declared late, but before any form of tax audit has been commenced or notified and no tax information exchange request has been made, although there is such an arrangement in place with the third-party State?
Case C-368/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2020 — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, Schengen Agreement, border control, freedom of movement, internal border of the EU








C_2020348EN.01000701.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2020 — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark
(Case C-368/20)
(2020/C 348/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: NW

Respondent authority: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law preclude domestic legislation in the form of consecutive domestic decrees prolonging border control which, cumulatively, allow for the reintroduction of border control for a period which exceeds the two-year time limit laid down in Article 25 and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (1) without a corresponding Council recommendation pursuant to Article 29 of that regulation?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Is the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) to be interpreted, especially in the light of the principle of the absence of checks on persons at internal borders established in Article 22 of Regulation 2016/399, as meaning that it includes the right not to be subject to checks on persons at internal borders, subject to the conditions and exceptions listed in the Treaties and, in particular, in the above regulation?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1, as corrected by OJ 2018 L 272, p. 69).

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 August 2020 2020/C 257/01
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020257EN.01000101.xml










5.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 August 2020
(2020/C 257/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1765 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,78 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4462 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90335 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3025 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0761 




ISK


Iceland króna


160,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,7568 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,221 




HUF


Hungarian forint


344,73 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4055 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8358 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,1990 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6495 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5773 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1179 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7807 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6195 




KRW


South Korean won


1 406,49 




ZAR


South African rand


20,4879 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2157 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4683 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 276,90 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9654 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,774 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7275 




THB


Thai baht


36,608 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2743 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,7401 




INR


Indian rupee


88,3805 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-362/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 5 August 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, carbon, cast-iron, import (EU), originating product, piping, tube








C_2020399EN.01002301.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 5 August 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV
(Case C-362/20)
(2020/C 399/32)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

Respondents: Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

Question referred

Are threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron, from China, subject to anti-dumping duties under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand (OJ 2012 L 318, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1), given the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European [Union], in its judgment of 12 July 2018 in Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17, that tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron are not tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron and that tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron fall under a different subheading than tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron?
Case T-485/20: Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European election, Member of the European Parliament, appointment of members, incompatibility, parliamentary immunity, remuneration of work








C_2020304EN.01002502.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/25






Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament
(Case T-485/20)
(2020/C 304/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:
Annul the Decision of the European Parliament/ Directorate General for Finance — Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements notified by letter of Mr Didier KLETHI, of 7 May 2020, providing that the salary of the MEP Oriol Junqueras i Vias may be paid only for the period from 25 September 2019 to 2 January 2020, in accordance with Article 10 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 19 December 2019, in the preliminary ruling proceedings C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, in so far as that judgment allowed Mr Junqueras to take his seat as an MEP from 13 June 2019, as, in accordance with that judgment, that was not contrary to Article 7.2 of the European Electoral Act of 1976.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the need, in the case in point, for a non-formalistic interpretation of Article 7.2 of the European Electoral Act of 1976, in so far as, given the Parliament’s failure to take action to protect Mr Junqueras’s immunity, he was materially and physically prevented, against his will, from resigning as a deputy in the Congress of Deputies and taking up his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the need, in the case in point, for a specific and non-formalistic interpretation of Article 7.2 of the European Electoral Act of 1976, in so far as it was not materially incompatible with that act for Mr Junqueras, who was suspended from his position as a deputy in the Congress of Deputies at the relevant time and whose remuneration and other entitlements related to that office were also suspended and who was, in addition, maintained in that role against his will by being prevented physically and materially and against his will from resigning, to resign from that position in order to take up his position as a Member of the European Parliament.
Case T-488/20: Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick)
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020320EN.01002601.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/26






Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick)
(Case T-488/20)
(2020/C 320/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Guerlain (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU tridimensional mark (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick) — Application for registration No 17 958 667

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2292/2019-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9901 – GIG Solar/Siemens/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 257/02
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: automation, banking, consultancy, digitisation, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, service, technology








C_2020257EN.01000201.xml










5.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/2






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9901 – GIG Solar/Siemens/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 257/02)

1.   
On 30 July 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:






—


GIG Solar Holdco, LLC (‘GIG Solar’, USA), an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Macquarie Group Limited and together with its subsidiaries, (‘Macquarie’),










—


Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (‘Siemens’, Germany),










—


MSS Energy Holdings, LLC (‘JV’, USA).




GIG Solar and Siemens acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created joint venture.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for GIG Solar: GIG Solar is a green infrastructure company; Macquarie is a global provider of banking, financial, advisory, investment, and funds management services,










—


for Siemens: Siemens’ main areas of business activity are electrification, automation and digitalisation,










—


for the JV: origination, development, delivery and financing of ‘energy as a service’ projects in the USA.






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.9901 – GIG Solar/Siemens/JV
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.
Case T-498/20: Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building, carpet, floor coverings, maintenance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01002401.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/24






Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)
(Case T-498/20)
(2020/C 339/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Dabas, Hungary) (represented by: P. Jalsovszky, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING — Application for registration No 17675802

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2019 in Case R 1630/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks STEP and WOOD STEP Laminate Flooring;










—


order that the mark at issue be registered by EUIPO;










—


order that the opposition proceedings be dismissed by EUIPO;










—


order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.










—


Infringement of article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.










—


Infringement of article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.










—


Infringement of Article 26(2) TFEU.










—


Infringement of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9870 – Total Direct Energie/Kernaman) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 257/03
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, renewable energy








C_2020257EN.01000401.xml










5.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9870 – Total Direct Energie/Kernaman)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 257/03)

1.   
On 24 July 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:






—


Total Direct Energie S.A. (‘Total Direct Energie’, France), a 100 % subsidiary of TOTAL S.A. (‘TOTAL’, France),










—


Kernaman SAS (‘Kernaman’, France)




Total Direct Energie acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Kernaman.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking TOTAL: TOTAL is active in all sectors of the oil and gas industry, as well as in the renewable energy, power generation sectors and carbon neutrality businesses,










—


for undertaking Kernaman: Kernaman is active in the electricity sector and holds the following assets: (i) Emile Huchet 7 and Emile Huchet 8, two combined cycle gas turbine units, and (ii) an optimisation and dispatching centre known as Le Centre d’Optimisation, de Dispatching et d’Ajustement de la Production and related assets and liabilities.






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.9870 – Total Direct Energie/Kernaman
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.
Case C-369/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2020 — NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz
Date: 2020-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, administrative sanction, border control, freedom of movement, internal border of the EU, passport








C_2020348EN.01000801.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2020 — NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz
(Case C-369/20)
(2020/C 348/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: NW

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law preclude domestic legislation in the form of consecutive domestic decrees prolonging border control which, cumulatively, allow for the reintroduction of border control for a period which exceeds the two-year time limit laid down in Article 25 and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (1) without a corresponding Council recommendation pursuant to Article 29 of that regulation?










2.


Is the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) to be interpreted, especially in the light of the principle of the absence of checks on persons at internal borders established in Article 22 of Regulation 2016/399, as meaning that it includes the right not to be subject to checks on persons at internal borders, subject to the conditions and exceptions listed in the Treaties and, in particular, in the above regulation?










3.


If question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Are Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted, in light of the effectiveness of the right to freedom of movement, as precluding the application of national legislation which obliges a person, on pain of receiving an administrative penalty, to present a passport or identity card on entry via an internal border, even where the particular check at the internal border is contrary to the provisions of EU law?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1), as corrected by OJ 2018 L 272, p. 69).

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.