do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-698/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — Municipality of Wieliszew v Administrator in the insolvency of Spółdzielczy Bank Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa in Wołomin, in liquidation
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EU financing arrangements, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, bank, bank deposit, liquidation








C_2021182EN.01002502.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — Municipality of Wieliszew v Administrator in the insolvency of Spółdzielczy Bank Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa in Wołomin, in liquidation
(Case C-698/20)
(2021/C 182/36)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Municipality of Wieliszew

Respondent: Administrator in the insolvency of Spółdzielczy Bank Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa in Wołomin, in liquidation

Question referred

Must Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) in particular Article 2(5), Articles 3 and 4, Article 57(1), and Articles 70 and 80 thereof, and, currently, Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, (2) in particular Article 2(15), Article 37(1), Article 66, Article 67(1), Article 74(1) and Article 89(1) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents an entity that has received resources from the budget of the European Union from effectively seeking in court proceedings that those resources be excluded from the insolvency estate where they have been paid into a bank account held at a bank which was subsequently declared insolvent, or national legislation which does not exclude those resources from the insolvency estate of the insolvent bank?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.
Case T-757/20: Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, staff regulations (EU), whistleblowing








C_2021062EN.01003901.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/39






Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament
(Case T-757/20)
(2021/C 62/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible;










—


annul the contested decision and, where necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 19 December 2019 imposing a reprimand on her, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in that the defendant never explained to the applicant what were the specific facts that led it to conclude that she ought to have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10035 — Burnam Parties/Kroenke Parties/SMG/Cascade Investment/StorageMart) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 5/05
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business, sport, storage








C_2021005EN.01000501.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10035 — Burnam Parties/Kroenke Parties/SMG/Cascade Investment/StorageMart)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 5/05)
On 21 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 32020M10035. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-697/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — W.G. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej in L.
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, agricultural holding, division of property, economic activity, farming sector, flat-rate tax, joint ownership, married person








C_2021182EN.01002501.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — W.G. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej in L.
(Case C-697/20)
(2021/C 182/35)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: W.G.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej in L.

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended), (1) in particular Articles 9, 295 and 296, be interpreted as precluding a national practice laid down in Article 15(4) and (5) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the tax on goods and services) (Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which excludes the option of treating as separate VAT taxable persons spouses who engage in agricultural activity within an agricultural holding using their marital joint property?










2.


Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, according to national practice, if one spouse opts to tax his or her business on the basis of general VAT rules, the other spouse ceases to be a flat-rate farmer?










3.


Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that it is possible to clearly distinguish between the assets used independently and autonomously by each spouse for the purposes of the business activity concerned?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-756/20: Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED)
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, engine, machine tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2021053EN.01006201.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/62






Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED)
(Case T-756/20)
(2021/C 53/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark VDL E-POWERED — Application for registration No 17 895 699

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 in Case R 2915/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


allow the present applicant for annulment;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10063 — Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Company/Hitachi Capital) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 6/06
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, loan, merger control, property leasing, real estate business, vehicle rental








C_2021006EN.01000801.xml










8.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/8






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10063 — Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Company/Hitachi Capital)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 6/06)
On 21 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 32020M10063 — Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Company/Hitachi Capital. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-246/20: Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v EA
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving instruction, driving licence








C_2021079EN.01002801.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/28






Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie v EA
(Case C-246/20) (1)

(2021/C 79/35)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court of Justice has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case T-744/20: Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission
Date: 2020-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Combined Nomenclature, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), non-flat product, originating product, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, specification of tariff heading








C_2021053EN.01005301.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/53






Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission
(Case T-744/20)
(2021/C 53/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1428 of 12 October 2020, imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);










—


order measures of inquiry;










—


order the Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 1(2) of the Basic Regulation in that the defendant incorrectly defined the product concerned by relying on Product Production Methods (‘PPM’), on incorrect reference to tariff classification codes of the EU Combined Nomenclature. The defendant also erred in law by considering that products ‘made in aluminium’ automatically qualified as products concerned.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 1(2) and 3(2) of the Basic Regulation as well as a manifest error of assessment concerning the scope of the product concerned and the evaluation of imports from the country concerned for the injury analysis purposes.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 (6) (a) of Basic Regulation in that the Commission performed a wrong choice of the ‘appropriate representative’ country.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 19 (a) of the Basic Regulation and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence as well as of the principles of proportionality and equality of arms. The applicant argues that it did not receive a proper pre-disclosure and that the system of pre-disclosure foreseen by the Basic Regulation vis-à-vis importers is unlawful.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2(6) (a) of the Basic Regulation concerning the legal status of the Report by which the Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. The applicant argues a violation of its fundamental rights given that it could not receive the above Report in Italian language.






(1)  OJ 2020, L 336, p. 8.