do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-940/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Les chirurgiens-dentistes de France and Others v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Article 4f(6) — National regulation — Allowing for the possibility of partial access to one of the professions covered by the mechanism for the automatic recognition of professional qualifications)
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2021138EN.01001201.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Les chirurgiens-dentistes de France and Others v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre
(Case C-940/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 4f(6) - National regulation - Allowing for the possibility of partial access to one of the professions covered by the mechanism for the automatic recognition of professional qualifications)
(2021/C 138/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Les chirurgiens-dentistes de France, Confédération des syndicats médicaux français, Fédération des syndicats pharmaceutiques de France, Syndicat des biologistes, Syndicat des laboratoires de biologie clinique, Syndicat des médecins libéraux, Union dentaire, Conseil national de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes, Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes, Conseil national de l’ordre des infirmiers

Defendants: Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4f(6) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation allowing for the possibility of partial access to one of the professions covered by the mechanism for the automatic recognition of professional qualifications laid down by the provisions of Chapter III of Title III of that directive, as amended.


(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case C-112/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2021 — X BV v Classic Coach Company vof, Y, Z
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021189EN.01001002.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2021 — X BV v Classic Coach Company vof, Y, Z
(Case C-112/21)
(2021/C 189/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: X BV

Respondents: Classic Coach Company vof, Y, Z

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of determining whether there is an ‘earlier right’ of a third party as referred to in Article 6(2) of the repealed Directive 2008/95/EC (1)







(a)


is it sufficient that, prior to the filing of the trade mark, that third party had made use in the course of trade of a right which is recognised by the laws of the Member State in question; or










(b)


is there a requirement that that third party, on the basis of that earlier right, under the applicable national legislation, is entitled to prohibit the use of the trade mark by the trade mark holder?














2.


In answering Question 1, is it also relevant whether the trade mark holder has an even earlier right (recognised by the laws of the Member State in question) in relation to the sign registered as a trade mark and, if so, is it relevant whether the trade mark holder may, on the basis of that even earlier recognised right, prohibit the use by the third party of the alleged ‘earlier right’?






(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Case C-129/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave — National legislation making the grant of a right to parental leave subject to a condition of employment and to the mandatory affiliation in that regard of the worker to the social security scheme concerned on the date on which the child was born)
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: adoption of a child, early childhood, framework agreement, parental leave, social security legislation, wage earner, work contract








C_2021138EN.01001202.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/12






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
(Case C-129/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - National legislation making the grant of a right to parental leave subject to a condition of employment and to the mandatory affiliation in that regard of the worker to the social security scheme concerned on the date on which the child was born)
(2021/C 138/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XI

Defendant: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Operative part of the judgment

Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1(b) of the Framework Agreement on parental leave (revised) of 18 June 2009, annexed to Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the grant of a right to parental leave subject to the condition that the parent concerned is employed without interruption for a period of at least 12 months immediately preceding the start of the parental leave. By contrast, those clauses preclude national legislation which makes the grant of a right to parental leave subject to the condition that the parent has the status of a worker at the time of the birth or adoption of his or her child.


(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (CFSP) 2021/251 of 18 February 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe (Official Journal of the European Union L 58 of 19 February 2021)
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2021065EN.01006001.xml










25.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 65/60







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (CFSP) 2021/251 of 18 February 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 58 of 19 February 2021
)


On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 9, in the title:
for:


                  ‘
                  Council Regulation (CFSP) 2021/251 of 18 February 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe
                  ’.

read:


                  ‘
                  Council Regulation (EU) 2021/251 of 18 February 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe
                  ’.
Case C-604/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Article 9(1) — Article 13(1) — Article 14(1) and (2)(a) — Concept of ‘supply of goods’ — Transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights by operation of law — Municipality collecting fees for the transformation — Concept of ‘compensation’ — Concept of ‘taxable person acting as such’ — Exception — Bodies governed by public law which engage in activities or transactions as public authorities)
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, local tax, municipality, public authorities, real property, supply, taxpayer, usufruct








C_2021138EN.01000402.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej
(Case C-604/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 9(1) - Article 13(1) - Article 14(1) and (2)(a) - Concept of ‘supply of goods’ - Transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights by operation of law - Municipality collecting fees for the transformation - Concept of ‘compensation’ - Concept of ‘taxable person acting as such’ - Exception - Bodies governed by public law which engage in activities or transactions as public authorities)
(2021/C 138/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights provided for by national legislation against payment of a fee constitutes a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision.










2.


Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights provided for by national legislation takes place against payment of a fee to the municipality which owns the property, enabling it to obtain income therefrom on a continuing basis, that municipality, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, acts as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, and not as a public authority for the purposes of Article 13(1) of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 65/07
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, consultancy, economic concentration, holding company, industrial product, investment, investment company, merger control, non-durable goods








C_2021065EN.01001401.xml










25.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 65/07)

1.   
On 17 February 2021, 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:






—


Special Packaging Solutions Investment S.à.r.l. (‘SPSI’, Luxembourg), controlled by Investindustrial S.A. (‘Investindustrial’, Luxembourg),










—


Guala Closure S.p.A. (‘Guala’, Italy).




SPSI acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Guala.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and a public bid announced on 8 December 2020.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Investindustrial: group of independently managed investment, holding and financial advisory companies focused on investments in medium-sized companies based in Europe. Investindustrial’s portfolio focuses on three main investment areas: consumer and leisure; healthcare and services; and industrial manufacturing,










—


for Guala: production of non-refillable and aluminium closures for spirits, wine, oil and vinegar, water, and beverages.






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.



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.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures
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’).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/381 of 25 February 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Escavèche de Chimay’ (PGI))
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, Province of Hainault, Province of Namur, designation of origin, fish product, labelling, product designation








L_2021074EN.01000101.xml










4.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 74/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/381
of 25 February 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Escavèche de Chimay’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to 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 (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Belgium’s application to register the name ‘Escavèche de Chimay’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Escavèche de Chimay’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Escavèche de Chimay’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 February 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 340, 13.10.2020, p. 12.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-123/21: Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, air quality, fluorine, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, sanction (EU), tradeable emission permit








C_2021148EN.01002301.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/23






Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission
(Case T-123/21)
(2021/C 148/32)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Galos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission, notified on 15 December 2020, fixing the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, (1) in so far as the Commission reduced the quota on the basis of Article 25 of the Regulation;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a plea in law alleging the incorrect application of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as a result of the misinterpretation of the concept of ‘placing on the market’ set out in Article 2, point 10, of that regulation.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195.
Case C-111/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 February 2021 — BT v Laudamotion GmbH
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, damages, indemnification, international convention, international transport, mental health, trauma








C_2021228EN.01001801.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 February 2021 — BT v Laudamotion GmbH
(Case C-111/21)
(2021/C 228/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BT

Defendant: Laudamotion GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does the psychological impairment of a passenger, which is caused by an accident and has clinical significance, constitute a ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation which would exist under the applicable national law?






(1)  : Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).
Case C-403/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double taxation — Taxation of dividends distributed by a non-resident already subject to a levy in another Member State — Maximum amount of tax credit accorded — Legal double taxation)
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, bilateral agreement, corporation tax, double taxation, free movement of capital, nationality of legal persons, tax relief








C_2021138EN.01000401.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/4






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics
(Case C-403/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of dividends distributed by a non-resident already subject to a levy in another Member State - Maximum amount of tax credit accorded - Legal double taxation)
(2021/C 138/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société Générale SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State which, pursuant to a scheme intended to offset the double taxation of dividends received by a company subject to corporation tax in the Member State in which it is established, which has been subject to a levy by another Member State, grants such a company a tax credit limited to the amount which the first Member State would receive if only those dividends were subject to corporation tax, without offsetting in full the levy paid in that other Member State.


(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.