do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-674/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 2(2) — Article 5(1) — Concept of ‘Products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco’ — Concept of ‘Smoking tobacco’ — Water-pipe tobacco)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, tax collection, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2020390EN.01001502.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/15






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-674/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 2(2) - Article 5(1) - Concept of ‘Products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco’ - Concept of ‘Smoking tobacco’ - Water-pipe tobacco)
(2020/C 390/21)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Interested party: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be construed as meaning that water-pipe tobacco, consisting of tobacco, which makes up 24 % thereof, and other substances such as sugar syrup, glycerine, flavourings and preservative, must be regarded as a product ‘consisting … in part of substances other than tobacco’ and as ‘smoking tobacco’ within the meaning of those provisions and must therefore be regarded, in its entirety and irrespective of the substances other than tobacco contained therein, as smoking tobacco subject to the excise duty on tobacco.


(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case C-435/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — C v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, Switzerland, asylum seeker, migrant, refugee, right of asylum








C_2020433EN.01002002.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — C v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-435/20)
(2020/C 433/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: C

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in a different EU Member State?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU also if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in an EU Member State, but in Switzerland?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: Is national legislation under which an application for asylum is inadmissible in the event of a subsequent application and which makes no distinction between refugee status and subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33(2)[(d)] of Directive 2013/32/EU?






(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Case C-339/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Company law — Shares admitted to trading on the regulated market — Financial investment company — National regulations limiting the shareholding in certain financial investment companies — Statutory presumption of concerted action)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company law, free movement of capital, investment company, share, shareholding, takeover bid








C_2020390EN.01000901.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/9






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară
(Case C-339/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Company law - Shares admitted to trading on the regulated market - Financial investment company - National regulations limiting the shareholding in certain financial investment companies - Statutory presumption of concerted action)
(2020/C 390/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA

Defendant: Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides for a 5 % limit on a shareholding in a financial investment company, if that measure is not justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Case C-121/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 — Edison SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word element EDISON — Interpretation of the terms in the heading of a class of the Nice Classification and in the accompanying alphabetical list)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical energy, fuel, lighting, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020390EN.01000702.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/7






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 — Edison SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-121/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word element EDISON - Interpretation of the terms in the heading of a class of the Nice Classification and in the accompanying alphabetical list)
(2020/C 390/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Edison SpA (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto and D. Martucci, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Edison SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case C-312/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — XT v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Article 9(1) — Article 193 — Concept of ‘taxable person’ — Joint activity agreement — Partnership — Allocation of an economic transaction to one of the partners — Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, legal status, professional partnership, taxpayer








C_2020390EN.01000802.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — XT v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-312/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Article 9(1) - Article 193 - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Joint activity agreement - Partnership - Allocation of an economic transaction to one of the partners - Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax)
(2020/C 390/11)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XT

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) and Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who has concluded with another natural person a joint activity agreement setting up a partnership, which lacks legal personality and is characterised by the fact that the first person is empowered to act in the name of the partners as a whole, but participates alone and in his or her own name in relations with third parties when performing acts that form the economic activity pursued by that partnership, must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 and as having sole liability for the value added tax payable under Article 193 of that directive, since he or she acts on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another person as a commission agent as provided for in Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2016/798, as regards the application of railway safety and interoperability rules within the Channel Fixed Link (COM(2020) 623 final – 2020/0161 (COD))
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: English Channel, France, United Kingdom, international transport, intra-EU transport, rail transport, transport safety, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020429EN.01029701.xml










11.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/297






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2016/798, as regards the application of railway safety and interoperability rules within the Channel Fixed Link
(COM(2020) 623 final – 2020/0161 (COD))
(2020/C 429/40)






Referral


European Parliament, 14.9.2020
Council, 4.8.2020




Legal basis


Article 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society




Adopted at plenary


16.9.2020




Plenary session No


554




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


unanimous




Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 554th plenary session of 16, 17 and 18 September 2020 (meeting of 16 September) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 16 September 2020.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1276 of 11 September 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance bromoxynil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (Official Journal of the European Union L 300, 14 September 2020)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, withdrawal from the market








L_2020302EN.01002701.xml










16.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 302/27







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1276 of 11 September 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance bromoxynil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 300, 14 September 2020
)








1.


On page 34, in Article 3, the date is changed as follows:




for


                  ‘
                  14 March 2021
                  ’,

read


                  ‘
                  17 March 2021
                  ’.







2.


On page 34, in Article 4, the date is changed as follows:




for


                  ‘
                  14 September 2021
                  ’,

Read


                  ‘
                  17 September 2021
                  ’.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering France to negotiate an agreement supplementing its existing bilateral Treaty with the United Kingdom concerning the construction and operation by private concessionaires of a Channel Fixed Link’ (COM(2020) 622 final – 2020/0160 (COD))
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: English Channel, France, United Kingdom, bilateral agreement, international negotiations, international transport, rail transport, revision of an agreement, transport infrastructure, transport safety








C_2020429EN.01029601.xml










11.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/296






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering France to negotiate an agreement supplementing its existing bilateral Treaty with the United Kingdom concerning the construction and operation by private concessionaires of a Channel Fixed Link’
(COM(2020) 622 final – 2020/0160 (COD))
(2020/C 429/39)






Referral


European Parliament, 14.9.2020
Council, 27.7.2020




Legal basis


Articles 2(1) and 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society




Adopted at plenary


16.9.2020




Plenary session No


554




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


unanimous




Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 554th plenary session of 16, 17 and 18 September 2020 (meeting of 16 September) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 16 September 2020.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER
Case C-669/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Access to documents — Protection of personal data — Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data — Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 — Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union — Allocation of costs)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, data protection, disclosure of information, liability, personal data








C_2020390EN.01001501.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/15






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
(Case C-669/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Access to documents - Protection of personal data - Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data - Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 - Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union - Allocation of costs)
(2020/C 390/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case C-462/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia — Spain) — proceedings against Asociación Nacional de Empresas Estibadoras y Consignatarios de Buques (Anesco), Comisiones Obreras, Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores del Mar (CETM), Confederación Intersindical Gallega, Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna, Langile Abertzaleen Batzordeak, Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Meaning of ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU — Criteria — Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission on Markets and Competition, Spain) — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, courts and tribunals, preliminary ruling procedure, public institution, restriction on competition








C_2020390EN.01001201.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/12






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia — Spain) — proceedings against Asociación Nacional de Empresas Estibadoras y Consignatarios de Buques (Anesco), Comisiones Obreras, Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores del Mar (CETM), Confederación Intersindical Gallega, Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna, Langile Abertzaleen Batzordeak, Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT)
(Case C-462/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Meaning of ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Criteria - Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission on Markets and Competition, Spain) - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(2020/C 390/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring body

Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia

Parties to the main proceedings

Asociación Nacional de Empresas Estibadoras y Consignatarios de Buques (Anesco), Comisiones Obreras, Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores del Mar (CETM), Confederación Intersindical Gallega, Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna, Langile Abertzaleen Batzordeak, Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT)

Interested party: Asociación Estatal de Empresas Operadoras Portuarias (Asoport)

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission on Markets and Competition, Spain), made by decision of 12 June 2019, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case C-434/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — flightright GmbH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, civil aviation, indemnification, reservation, transport regulations, traveller








C_2020433EN.01002001.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — flightright GmbH v SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.
(Case C-434/20)
(2020/C 433/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: SunExpress Günes Ekspres Havacilik A.S.

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 4 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a rebooking onto another, earlier flight by which the passenger reaches his final destination 10 hours and 1 minute before the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked constitutes a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation?










2.


In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, must the passenger, even in that event, have presented himself for check-in and boarding at the time indicated and no later than 45 minutes before the published departure time of the originally booked flight — as required in principle by Article 3(2) and Article 2(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004) — in order for that regulation to be applicable and, more specifically, in order to give rise to a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation, even though this was in fact no longer possible because the passenger had taken the rebooked earlier replacement flight?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9895 — KKR/Waves UK Divestco) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 327/02
Date: 2020-09-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020327EN.01000201.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9895 — KKR/Waves UK Divestco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 327/02)
On 16 September 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 English 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 32020M9895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.