do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-801/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — FRANCK d.d. Zagreb v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(b) and (d) — Definitions of ‘granting of credit’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ — Complex transactions — Principal supply — Provision of funds in return for payment — Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, credit, financial services, financial transaction, negotiable instrument, payment, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2021062EN.01000802.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — FRANCK d.d. Zagreb v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak
(Case C-801/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) and (d) - Definitions of ‘granting of credit’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Complex transactions - Principal supply - Provision of funds in return for payment - Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange)
(2021/C 62/08)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FRANCK d.d. Zagreb

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax on granting credit and transactions concerning other negotiable instruments laid down by those provisions, applies to a transaction which consists in the making available of funds obtained from a factoring company by one taxable person to another taxable person, for remuneration, following the transmission to the latter of a bill of exchange issued by the second taxable person, the first taxable person guaranteeing the repayment to the factoring company of that bill of exchange at its maturity.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case T-161/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission (State aid — Construction of a convention centre and hotel in Ingolstadt — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Adoption of a position putting an end to the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, State aid, action for failure to act, building, business tourism, control of State aid, hotel industry








C_2021062EN.01003302.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/33






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission
(Case T-161/20) (1)

(State aid - Construction of a convention centre and hotel in Ingolstadt - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position putting an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 62/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10) (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a final decision closing the preliminary examination procedure concerning the alleged State aid scheme SA.48582 (2017/FC) implemented by Germany in favour of the Maritim Group and KHI Immobilien GmbH.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 eV (Ighoga Region 10).






(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Case T-731/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, industrial pollution








C_2021044EN.01005801.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/58






Action brought on 17 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-731/20)
(2021/C 44/80)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2020 (Ref. Ares (2020)7439507 — 08/12/2020); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 8 December 2020, by which the Commission refused, in the context of interlocutory proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin and an application to that effect by the Umweltbundesamt, to participate in the transfer of emission allowances to provisionally secure the applicant’s entitlement to free allocation of emission allowances for the purposes of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the preliminary ruling in Case C-271/20.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Commission of 8 December 2020 affects the applicant directly and individually. It therefore has legal standing to bring proceedings.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in the context of granting interim relief on account of national court proceedings, is obliged by the principle of ensuring effective judicial protection, enshrined in EU law, to participate in securing any entitlement to allocation of emission allowances from being lost.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2003/87/EC (1) and Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (2) form the regulatory framework for such participation and the transfer of emission allowances to national accounts.






(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013 L 122, p. 1).
Case T-37/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — United Kingdom v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Time limit for bringing an action — Starting point — Notification and publication — No excusable error — Out of time — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2021062EN.01003202.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/32






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — United Kingdom v Commission
(Case T-37/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Time limit for bringing an action - Starting point - Notification and publication - No excusable error - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 62/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1835 of 30 October 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2019 L 279, p. 98), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and the French Republic.










3.


The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The Czech Republic and the French Republic shall bear their own costs relating to their applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Case C-849/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Article 4(4) — Obligation to establish conservation objectives — Article 6(1) — Obligation to take conservation measures — Decision 2006/613/EC — Mediterranean biogeographical region)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), infringement of EU law, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2021062EN.01000901.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-849/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Article 4(4) - Obligation to establish conservation objectives - Article 6(1) - Obligation to take conservation measures - Decision 2006/613/EC — Mediterranean biogeographical region)
(2021/C 62/09)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Joined Cases C-475/19 P and C-688/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 — Harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products — Harmonised standards and technical regulations — Harmonised standards EN 14342:2013, EN 14904:2006, EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 — Action for annulment)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European standard, approximation of laws, floor coverings, harmonisation of standards, launching of a product, marketing standard, technical specification, technical standard








C_2021053EN.01001201.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Republic of Finland
(Joined Cases C-475/19 P and C-688/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 - Harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products - Harmonised standards and technical regulations - Harmonised standards EN 14342:2013, EN 14904:2006, EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 - Action for annulment)
(2021/C 53/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents, and by M. Kottmann, M. Winkelmüller and F. van Schewick, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, M. Huttunen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen and A. Laine, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the present appeals and to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Case C-342/19 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank (Appeal — Access to European Central Bank (ECB) documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Article 4(3) — Exceptions — Document received by the ECB — Opinion from an external service provider — Internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations — Refusal to grant access)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality








C_2021053EN.01000801.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis v European Central Bank
(Case C-342/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to European Central Bank (ECB) documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Article 4(3) - Exceptions - Document received by the ECB - Opinion from an external service provider - Internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations - Refusal to grant access)
(2021/C 53/08)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Fabio De Masi, Yanis Varoufakis (represented by: A. Fischer-Lescano, Universitätsprofessor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and A. Korb, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Fabio de Masi and Yanis Varoufakis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Case C-601/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court — Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract staff, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, works contract








C_2021062EN.01000501.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/5






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
(Case C-601/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court - Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment)
(2021/C 62/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

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 432, 23.12.2019.
Case C-490/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 13(1)(d) — Practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product — Reproduction of the shape or appearance of a product which has a protected name — Protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Morbier’)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, consumer information, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, product designation








C_2021053EN.01001301.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/13






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS
(Case C-490/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 13(1)(d) - Practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product - Reproduction of the shape or appearance of a product which has a protected name - Protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Morbier’)
(2021/C 53/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier

Defendant: Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that they do not prohibit solely the use by a third party of a registered name.
Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation No 510/2006 and Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation No 1151/2012 must be interpreted as prohibiting the reproduction of the shape or appearance characterising a product covered by a registered name where that reproduction is liable to lead the consumer to believe that the product in question is covered by that registered name. It is necessary to assess whether such reproduction may mislead the European consumer, who is normally informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account all relevant factors in the case.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case C-449/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption for leasing and letting immovable property — National legislation exempting from VAT the supply of heat by an association of residential property owners to property owners belonging to that association)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, heating, housing cooperative, national law, ownership, property leasing, supply, tax exemption, tax law








C_2021053EN.01001102.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/11






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen
(Case C-449/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption for leasing and letting immovable property - National legislation exempting from VAT the supply of heat by an association of residential property owners to property owners belonging to that association)
(2021/C 53/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WEG Tevesstraße

Defendant: Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which exempts from value added tax the supply of heat by an association of residential property owners to the property owners belonging to that association.


(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10029 — ABN AMRO Bank/ODDO BHF/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 5/11
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bank, banking, economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2021005EN.01001101.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/11






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10029 — ABN AMRO Bank/ODDO BHF/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 5/11)
On 17 December 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 32020M10029. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.