do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-209/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-238/20, Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2021-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, Sweden, aid to undertakings, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, credit guarantee, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services








C_2021297EN.01001601.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/16






Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-238/20, Ryanair v Commission
(Case C-209/21 P)
(2021/C 297/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F. C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2366 final of 11 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56812 (2020/N) — Sweden — COVID-19: Loan guarantee scheme to airlines is void; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;




alternatively:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.
First, the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
Second, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on free movement of services.
Third, the General Court made an error in law in rejecting the application of the balancing test.
Fourth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.
Fifth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
Case C-218/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 1 April 2021 — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR. — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA
Date: 2021-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, lift, maintenance, tax relief








C_2021252EN.01001201.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 1 April 2021 — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR. — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA
(Case C-218/21)
(2021/C 252/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Defendant: DSR. — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling







1.


Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, (1) for point 2.27 of List I annexed to the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it is taken to mean that it includes the repair and maintenance of lifts carried out by the undertaking to which the facts … above relate and that it results in the application of the reduced rate of VAT?










2.


Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, for that provision of the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it also takes into account other provisions of national law, namely Article 1207, Article 204(1)(e) and (3), and Article 1421(2)(b) of the Civil Code (provisions governing the concepts of works contract and immovable property and the presumption that a lift is a common part of a building in co-ownership)?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-219/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-817/19, Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO
Date: 2021-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021320EN.01001401.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/14






Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-817/19, Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO
(Case C-219/21 P)
(2021/C 320/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Kondrat, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 24 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs.