do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-235/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 12 April 2021 — RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o. v Republika Slovenija
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, contract, goods and services, invoicing, provision of services, supply, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2021217EN.01003201.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 12 April 2021 — RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o. v Republika Slovenija
(Case C-235/21)
(2021/C 217/43)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o.

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Questions referred







1.


May a written agreement be regarded as an invoice, for the purposes of Article 203 of the VAT Directive, (1) only if it contains all of the information that is required to be set out in an invoice in accordance with Chapter 3 (‘Invoicing’) [of Title XI] of the VAT Directive?
In the event that that question is answered in the negative:










2.


On the basis of what information and circumstances may a written agreement in any event be regarded (also) as an invoice giving rise to an obligation to pay VAT within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive?
More specifically:










3.


May a written agreement, concluded by two taxable persons subject to VAT and concerning the supply of goods or services, be regarded as an invoice within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive if it evidences an express and objectively identifiable intention on the part of the seller or the provider of services, as a contracting party, to issue an invoice for a specific transaction, such that the purchaser could reasonably assume that it had, on the basis thereof, a right to deduct the input VAT paid?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 125/03
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, medical institution, merger control, psychiatric institution, social facilities








C_2021125EN.01000301.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 125/03)

1.   
On 29 March 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:






—


Intermediate Capital Group plc (‘ICG’, United Kingdom),










—


Dr. Axel Paeger (‘Dr. Paeger’, a German national),










—


AMEOS Gruppe AG (‘AMEOS’, Switzerland).




ICG and Dr. Paeger acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of AMEOS.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ICG: investment firm active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and minority and majority equity in companies across Europe, Asia Pacific and the US,










—


for Dr. Paeger: founder and Chief Executive Officer of AMEOS,










—


for AMEOS: private operator of acute general hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals, as well as long-term elderly care and long-term mental care facilities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10207 — ICG/Dr. Axel Paeger/AMEOS
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/631 of 12 April 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ (PGI))
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Central Hungary, Central Transdanubia, Hungary, designation of origin, fresh fruit, labelling, product designation, stone fruit








L_2021132EN.01002301.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 132/23








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/631
of 12 April 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ (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, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ 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 ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, 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, 12 April 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 447, 23.12.2020, p. 21.

(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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10185 — Pierer Industrie/Palfinger/FSS/Jetfly) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 133/01
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, economic concentration, hydraulic machinery, investment company, low cost airline, merger control








C_2021133EN.01000101.xml










16.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10185 — Pierer Industrie/Palfinger/FSS/Jetfly)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 133/01)
On 12 April 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 German language 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 32021M10185. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.9938 — Kingspan Group/Trimo) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 133/02
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, building insulation, building materials, economic concentration, lighting, merger control, plumbing equipment, technology








C_2021133EN.01000201.xml










16.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.9938 — Kingspan Group/Trimo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 133/02)
On 12 April 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.9938 — Kingspan Group/Trimo, to the following 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’).
Case T-196/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO…?)
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01005801.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/58






Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO…?)
(Case T-196/21)
(2021/C 217/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark SO…? — European Union trade mark No 17 473 513

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1235/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-236/21 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2021 by sprd.net AG against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 12 February 2021 in Case T-19/20, sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, ceramics, clothing, footwear industry, glass, household article, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021471EN.01001501.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/15






Appeal brought on 12 April 2021 by sprd.net AG against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 12 February 2021 in Case T-19/20, sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor
(Case C-236/21 P)
(2021/C 471/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: sprd.net AG (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Shirtlabor GmbH
By order of 1 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-198/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01005902.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/59






Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)
(Case T-198/21)
(2021/C 217/75)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU work mark CODE-X — Application for registration No 17 893 826

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 in Case R 208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2018 rejecting the opposition brought against EU trade mark application No 17 893 826;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-197/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO…?)
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electronic document, electronic publishing, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01005901.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/59






Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO…?)
(Case T-197/21)
(2021/C 217/74)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SO…? — European Union trade mark No 485 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1234/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs, which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10081— KION/Jungheinrich/HSP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 139/01
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hoisting equipment, iron and steel-working machinery, merger control








C_2021139EN.01000101.xml










20.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10081— KION/Jungheinrich/HSP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 139/01)
On 12 April 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 German language 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 32021M10081. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-192/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01005601.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/56






Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)
(Case T-192/21)
(2021/C 217/71)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark META — Application for registration No 17 973 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 in Case R 1152/2020-2

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 973 308 META in Class 5;










—


order the defendant, or if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-234/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 12 April 2021 — Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL v Conseil des ministres
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, firearms and munitions, ownership, personal weapon








C_2021297EN.01002001.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 12 April 2021 — Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL v Conseil des ministres
(Case C-234/21)
(2021/C 297/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL, NG, WL

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Question referred

Does Article 7(4a) of Directive 91/477/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with points 6 to 9 of category A of Part II of Annex 1 to that directive, infringe Articles 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that it does not allow Member States to provide for transitional arrangements for firearms covered by category A.9 which were lawfully acquired and registered before 13 June 2017, whereas it allows them to provide for transitional arrangements for firearms covered by categories A.6 to A.8 which were lawfully acquired and registered before 13 June 2017?


(1)  Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons ( OJ 1991 L 256, p. 51).
Case T-203/21: Action brought on 12 April 2021 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI)
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, cosmetic product, footwear industry, leather, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01006401.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/64






Action brought on 12 April 2021 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI)
(Case T-203/21)
(2021/C 217/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: IN.PRO.DI — Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antonino Aiello (Naples, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CAPRI — Application for registration No 13 768 197

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 49/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, as a correction of the decision of the Opposition Division of 12 November 2019, declare that the opposition against the application for registration of European trade mark No 13 768 197 is rejected in its entirety, and thus the application for registration granted in its entirety;










—


order A. Aiello to pay the costs in relation to all of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


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