do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-585/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Valladolid (Spain) lodged on 5 November 2020 — BFF Finance Iberia S.A.U v Gerencia Regional de Salud de la Junta de Castilla y León
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, claim, deadline for payment, interest, invoicing








C_2021053EN.01001901.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Valladolid (Spain) lodged on 5 November 2020 — BFF Finance Iberia S.A.U v Gerencia Regional de Salud de la Junta de Castilla y León
(Case C-585/20)
(2021/C 53/24)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Valladolid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BFF Finance Iberia S.A.U

Defendant: Gerencia Regional de Salud de la Junta de Castilla y León

Questions referred

In the light of Articles 4(1), 6, and 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions: (1)







1.


Is Article 6 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the sum of EUR 40 applies per invoice in all circumstances, provided that the creditor has individually identified the invoices in his claims before the administrative authorities and the administrative courts, or does the sum of EUR 40 apply per invoice in all circumstances, even if joint and general claims have been lodged?










2.


How must Article 198(4) of Law 9/2017 [which lays down] a payment period of 60 days in all circumstances and for all contracts, providing for an initial period of 30 days for approval and another, additional period of 30 days for payment, be interpreted, in so far as [recital] 23 of the directive is worded as follows:
‘Long payment periods and late payment by public authorities for goods and services lead to unjustified costs for undertakings. It is therefore appropriate to introduce specific rules as regards commercial transactions for the supply of goods or services by undertakings to public authorities, which should provide in particular for payment periods normally not exceeding 30 calendar days, unless otherwise expressly agreed … and provided it is objectively justified in the light of the particular nature or features of the contract, and in any event not exceeding 60 calendar days.’[?]










3.


How is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted? Does the interpretation of the directive support the conclusion that the basis for calculating late-payment interest recognised in the directive includes the VAT due on the service provided, the amount of which is included in the invoice? Or is it necessary to identify and determine the time when the contractor paid the tax to the tax administrative authority?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 374/03
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, emergency aid, maritime shipping, road transport, waterway transport








C_2020374EN.01000301.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/3






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 374/03)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


20 July 2020




Case No


85362




Decision No


094/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 Compensation scheme for operators of year-round, commercial, long-distance scheduled bus or passenger boat services




Legal basis


The regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for operators of commercial bus and passenger boat routes with a loss in turnover caused by the COVID-19 outbreak




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


To compensate beneficiaries for damages caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and the Norwegian authorities infection control measures, in order to ensure the continuity of year-round, commercial, long-distance bus and passenger boat services that do not receive compensation from local or other public authorities for public services obligations




Form of aid


Direct grants




Budget


NOK 100 million




Duration


1.6.2020 – 31.8.2020




Economic sectors


Land and sea transport sectors




Name and address of the granting authority


The Norwegian Railway Directorate
Jernbanedirektoratet
Postboks 16 Sentrum
0101  Oslo
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case T-383/20: Order of the General Court of 5 November 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2021019EN.01005201.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/52






Order of the General Court of 5 November 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko)
(Case T-383/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 19/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Moloko Beverage GmbH (Göppingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Wieland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nexus Liquids GmbH (Bad Salzuflen, Germany) (represented by: F. Schembecker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2020 (Case R 1485/2019-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Nexus Liquids and Moloko Beverage.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.










2.


Moloko Beverage GmbH and Nexus Liquids GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 374/04
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, carbon capture and storage, control of State aid, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions








C_2020374EN.01000401.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/4






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 374/04)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


17 July 2020




Case No


85378




Decision No


093/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


The Full-Scale CCS Project




Legal basis


Support Agreements between the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Norcem AS, Fortum Oslo Varme AS and Northern Lights




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Investment aid (P85 estimate):
Fortum Oslo Varme AS: NOK 4 365  million
Norcem AS: NOK 3 141  million
Northern Lights: NOK 8 169  million
Operating aid (P85 estimate):
Fortum Oslo Varme AS: NOK 2 225  million
Norcem AS: NOK 1 172  million
Northern Lights: NOK 4 429  million




Intensity


>100 %




Duration


Until 2034 (estimate)




Economic sectors


Production of electricity, Steam and air conditioning supply, Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, Manufacture of refined petroleum products, Manufacture of articles of concrete, cement and plaster




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Petroleum and Energy




Postboks 8148 Dep




N-0033 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case T-693/20: Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, control of restrictive practices, import (EU), originating product, paper, reduced price, restrictive trade practice








C_2021019EN.01007101.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/71






Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission
(Case T-693/20)
(2021/C 19/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1524 of 19 October 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain heavyweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea in so far as it relates to the applicant;










—


order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins of the applicant violates Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Case C-581/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 November 2020 — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO S.p.A — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori S.p.A
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, civil procedure, commercial law, evidence, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2021028EN.01002701.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 November 2020 — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO S.p.A — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori S.p.A
(Case C-581/20)
(2021/C 28/43)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad

Respondent: TOTO S.p.A — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori S.p.A

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that a case such as that described in this order for reference must be regarded in whole or in part as a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that regulation?










2.


After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?










3.


If it follows from the answers to the first two questions referred that the court seised of an application under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council has jurisdiction, must the conditions for the ordering of protective measures under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted independently? Should a provision which does not allow a protective measure to be ordered against a public body in a case such as the present one be disapplied?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case T-662/20: Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (Triple helicoid cheese)
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cheese, designs and models








C_2021009EN.01002801.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/28






Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (Triple helicoid cheese)
(Case T-662/20)
(2021/C 9/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayí Ve Tícaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the design No DM/080641-0002 (Triple helicoid cheese in colour yellow)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 in Case R 1925/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and dismiss the application of the other party before the Board of Appeal for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested international registration No DM/080641-0002 designating the European Union;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case C-582/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2020 — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, appeal to an administrative authority, criminal proceedings, right to justice, tax authorities, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2021053EN.01001801.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2020 — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca
(Case C-582/20)
(2021/C 53/23)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC Cridar Cons SRL

Respondents: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

Questions referred







1.


Are Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the tax authorities, after issuing a notice of assessment refusing to grant a right to deduct input VAT, are permitted to suspend the examination of an administrative complaint pending the outcome of criminal proceedings that could provide additional objective evidence of the taxable person’s involvement in tax fraud?










2.


Would the answer given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the first question be different if, during the period for which examination of the administrative complaint is suspended, the taxable person benefits from provisional measures which suspend the effects of the refusal of the right to deduct VAT?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 374/05
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, emergency aid, investment promotion, private-sector liquidity, tax relief








C_2020374EN.01000501.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/5






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 374/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


20 July 2020




Case No


85113




Decision No


095/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title


COVID-19 – Increased initial depreciation for investments in assets in Asset Group D




Legal basis


Act No 14, 26.3.1999 (the Tax Act), as amended by Amendment 143 (2019-2020)




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


To alleviate the liquidity shortage faced by many undertakings and provide a broad stimulus to the economy




Form of aid


Tax advantage




Budget


NOK 1 200  million




Intensity


0,48 %




Duration


20 July 2020 – 31 December 2020




Economic sectors


All sectors that invest in assets in Asset Group D




Name and address of the granting authority







The Norwegian Tax Administration




Postboks 9200, Grønland




0134 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 November 2020 2020/C 374/02
Date: 2020-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020374EN.01000201.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 November 2020
(2020/C 374/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1721 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4466 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89954 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3520 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0675 




ISK


Iceland króna


164,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9583 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,781 




HUF


Hungarian forint


362,42 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5368 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8675 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9037 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6346 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5411 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0872 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7541 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5926 




KRW


South Korean won


1 327,24 




ZAR


South African rand


18,8090 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8038 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5530 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 892,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8853 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,717 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,4670 




THB


Thai baht


36,370 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6760 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,6474 




INR


Indian rupee


87,1955 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.