do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-167/21: Action brought on 29 March 2021 — European Gaming and Betting Association v Commission
Date: 2021-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, game of chance, gaming establishment, trade licence








C_2021206EN.01003301.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/33






Action brought on 29 March 2021 — European Gaming and Betting Association v Commission
(Case T-167/21)
(2021/C 206/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Gaming and Betting Association (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: T. De Meese, K. Bourgeois and M. Van Nieuwenborgh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 18 December 2020 in case SA.44830 (2016/FC) — Netherlands: Prolongation of gambling licenses in the Netherlands (1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the applicant’s procedural rights by failing to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108 (2) TFEU while its preliminary investigation did not eliminate all doubts as to the existence of State aid.






—


It is argued that the length and circumstances of the preliminary examination constitute evidence that the defendant had doubts as to the existence of State aid.










—


Furthermore, the applicant argues that the significant shift in the defendant’s analysis in the course of the preliminary examination constitutes evidence that the defendant had doubts as to the existence of State aid.










—


The applicant also argues that the defendant wrongly concluded that no doubts persist with regard to whether the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands confers an advantage on the licensees.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by finding that the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands does not grant an advantage within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU.






—


It is argued that the defendant made manifest errors of fact, first, as concerns the finding of the defendant that all the licensees are under a legal obligation to remit the net proceeds of the gambling activities to goals that serve the common interest, and, secondly, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the licensees were not able to make a profit.










—


Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the defendant made manifest errors of law, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the granting of the licenses in question did not confer an advantage on the beneficiaries as these licenses cannot be said to have improved the financial situation of the licensees.










(1)  OJ 2021 C 17, p. 1
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 March 2021 2021/C 109/01
Date: 2021-03-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021109EN.01000101.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 March 2021
(2021/C 109/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1782 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,34 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85503 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1905 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1090 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1258 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,081 




HUF


Hungarian forint


363,58 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6493 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8878 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,4523 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5459 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4814 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1540 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6863 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5865 




KRW


South Korean won


1 332,17 




ZAR


South African rand


17,6845 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7063 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5740 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 986,70 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8854 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,132 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,5075 




THB


Thai baht


36,654 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,7110 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2575 




INR


Indian rupee


85,4845 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-200/21: Action brought on 29 March 2021 — JS v EDPS
Date: 2021-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, natural person, personal data, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy








C_2021217EN.01006101.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/61






Action brought on 29 March 2021 — JS v EDPS
(Case T-200/21)
(2021/C 217/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the EDPS dated 18 January 2021 rejecting the complaint of the applicant;










—


annul also, and so far as necessary, the decision of the EDPS dated 9 March 2021 rejecting the request for review of that initial decision;










—


order compensation for the prejudice suffered;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging breaches of Articles 4(1), 5, 19, 20 and 23 of Regulation No 2018/1725, (1) of the principles of necessity and proportionality, and of Articles 8 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).
Case T-171/21: Action brought on 29 March 2021 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)
Date: 2021-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, electronic game, publishing, registered trade mark, software, sporting event, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021228EN.01003101.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/31






Action brought on 29 March 2021 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)
(Case T-171/21)
(2021/C 228/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ubisoft Entertainment (Carentoir, France) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, Chine)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FOR HONOR — Application for registration No 14 744 338

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2021 in Case R 1297/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to bear all costs and to reimburse the applicant of all costs supported for the opposition action and appeal action including appeal taxes.





Plea in law







—


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










—


Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10119 — Deme Concessions/CDC/Région Occitanie/Port-La Nouvelle) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 117/01
Date: 2021-03-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, credit institution, economic concentration, harbour installation, investment company, maritime transport, merger control, regional authority, service concession








C_2021117EN.01000101.xml










6.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 117/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10119 — Deme Concessions/CDC/Région Occitanie/Port-La Nouvelle)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 117/01)
On 29 March 2021, 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 French 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 32021M10119. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-194/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 March 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: X
Date: 2021-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2021228EN.01002401.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 March 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: X
(Case C-194/21)
(2021/C 228/32)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: X

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 184 and 185 of the VAT Directive 2006 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who, at the time of acquiring goods or services, has failed to deduct input tax (‘the initial deduction’) within the applicable national time limit in accordance with the intended use for tax purposes, is entitled, when an adjustment is made — on the occasion of the subsequent first use of those goods or services — to make that deduction if the actual use at the time of the adjustment does not differ from the intended use?










2.


Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the fact that the failure to make the initial deduction does not involve fraud or abuse of rights and that no detrimental impact on the treasury has been established?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).