do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-248/21: Action brought on 7 May 2021 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO (BACK-2-NATURE)
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal welfare, domestic animal, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2021252EN.01003001.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/30






Action brought on 7 May 2021 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO (BACK-2-NATURE)
(Case T-248/21)
(2021/C 252/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark BACK-2-NATURE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 485 655

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2021 in Case R 1699/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (OJ C 122, 9.4.2021)
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, control of State aid








C_2021177EN.01007001.xml










7.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/70






Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 122 of 9 April 2021
)
(2021/C 177/04)
On page 39, State aid number SA.62035 (2021/NN):

for:






‘Objective


Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’





read:






‘Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy’
Case C-293/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 May 2021 — ‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, capital goods, liquidation, tax law, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2021289EN.01002901.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 May 2021 — ‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija
(Case C-293/21)
(2021/C 289/40)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant:‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

Are Articles 184 to 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person is (or is not) obliged to adjust deductions of value added tax (VAT) charged on the acquisition of goods and services for the purposes of producing capital goods in the case where those goods are no longer intended to be used in the course of taxable economic activities because the owner (shareholder) of the taxable person decides to place it in liquidation and that taxable person submits a request that it be removed from the register of VAT payers? Is the answer to that question affected by the reasons for deciding to liquidate the taxable person, namely the fact that the decision to place that person in liquidation was taken due to growing losses, the absence of orders and the shareholder’s doubts as to the profitability of the planned (intended) economic activity?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Withdrawal of Commission proposals (Official Journal of the European Union C 143 of 23 April 2021) 2021/C 173/05
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: proposal (EU)








C_2021173EN.01000601.xml










7.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/6






Corrigendum to Withdrawal of Commission proposals

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 143 of 23 April 2021
)

(2021/C 173/05)
On page 4, header ‘A European Green Deal’, second row:
for:








‘COM(2010) 154 final


2010/0084 (APP)


Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on the conclusion of the Understanding concerning the conservation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean’





read:








‘COM(2010) 154 final


2010/0084 (NLE)


Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on the conclusion of the Understanding concerning the conservation of swordfish stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean’





On page 5, header ‘Promoting our European way of life’, first row:








‘COM(2015) 450 final


2015/0208 (COD)


Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a crisis relocation mechanism and amending Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national or a stateless person’





is deleted.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 May 2021 2021/C 173/02
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021173EN.01000301.xml










7.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 May 2021
(2021/C 173/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2060 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,69 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86708 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1940 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0953 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0558 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,847 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,18 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5868 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9264 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0490 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5547 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4764 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3685 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6715 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6096 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,78 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2081 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8054 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5335 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 246,34 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9711 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,845 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,8825 




THB


Thai baht


37,712 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4707 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,4195 




INR


Indian rupee


88,9405 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-292/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE) and Others v Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA) and Others
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving instruction, driving licence, provision of services, road safety, service concession, services of general interest








C_2021329EN.01000801.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE) and Others v Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA) and Others
(Case C-292/21)
(2021/C 329/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Administración General del Estado, Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE), UTE CNAE-ITT-FORMASTER-ECT

Defendants: Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA), Ministerio Fiscal

Question referred

Is a national provision pursuant to which contracts for the provision of road safety awareness and training courses for the purposes of the recovery of driving licence points must be awarded by means of a public service concession compatible with Directive 2006/123/EC, (1) or, as the case may be, with other provisions or principles of European Union law?


(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10182 — SADC/Cognite/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 187/03
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: artificial intelligence, cloud computing, digitisation, economic concentration, merger control, oil industry, provision of services, software, subsidiary








C_2021187EN.01000801.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/8






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10182 — SADC/Cognite/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 187/03)
On 7 May 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 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 32021M10182. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-296/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 May 2021 — A
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: firearms and munitions, trade licence, weapons' destruction








C_2021289EN.01003001.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 May 2021 — A
(Case C-296/21)
(2021/C 289/42)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendants: Helsingin poliisilaitos and Poliisihallitus

Questions referred

In the case of transfers of deactivated firearms within the Union, taking into account the provisions of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, and the provisions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 (2) of 15 December 2015 establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable, in particular Article 3(1) of that regulation:






(a)


can a verifying entity which has been confirmed by a national authority and has issued a deactivation certificate be regarded as an entity within the meaning of the Weapons Directive and Articles 3 and 7 of the Deactivation Regulation even though it is not included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to Article 3(3), where various authorities of that Member State have notified the transferor of the weapons that the verifying entity, operating in the legal form of a limited liability company (GmbH), which issued the certificate is authorised to do so under that regulation; and










(b)


can a verifying entity designated by a Member State for the purposes of the deactivation of weapons also be validated by means of other evidence obtained from a national authority instead of by means of inclusion in the list published on the Commission’s website within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the regulation, such that a deactivation certificate issued by that verifying entity meets the requirements laid down in that regulation to the effect that a Member State must recognise a deactivation certificate issued in another Member State in accordance with Article 7(2) of the regulation?






(1)  Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (OJ 2008 L 179, p. 5).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 of 15 December 2015 establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable (OJ 2015 L 333, p. 62).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10200 — Blackstone/GIP/Cascade/Signature) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 184/02
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: airport, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2021184EN.01000201.xml










12.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10200 — Blackstone/GIP/Cascade/Signature)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 184/02)
On 7 May 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 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 32021M10200. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-291/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Starkinvest SRL
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: banking, claim, debt, enforcement of ruling, fine, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2021278EN.01003501.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/35






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Starkinvest SRL
(Case C-291/21)
(2021/C 278/49)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Starkinvest SRL

Questions referred







1.


Does a judgment which has been served, ordering a party to make a penalty payment in the event of breach of a prohibitory order, constitute a decision requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure? (1)











2.


Does a judgment ordering a party to make a penalty payment, although enforceable in the country of origin, fall within the meaning of ‘judgment’ in Article 4 of Regulation No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order where there has been no final determination of the amount in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (2)







(1)  Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2014 L 189, p. 59).

(2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case T-249/21: Action brought on 7 May 2021 — SN v Parliament
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, debt, financial interests of members, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2021278EN.01005101.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/51






Action brought on 7 May 2021 — SN v Parliament
(Case T-249/21)
(2021/C 278/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SN (represented by: P. Eleftheriadis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul in whole the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament dated 21 December 2020,










—


annul in whole the Debit Note addressed to the Applicant, for the amount of 196 199,84 Euros, No 7010000021, dated 15 January 2021 and










—


order the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs in the 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 that the European Parliament acted without regard to Article 137 of Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament misdirected itself in law and failed to apply the correct standard of ‘undue payment’ under Articles 32 and 68 of Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008, concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. (2)











3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament failed to have regard to a Member’s right to freedom and independence, under Articles 2 and 21 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. (3)











4.


Forth plea in law, alleging failure to give reasons under Article 296 TFEU in dismissing sixty eight out of seventy eight documents submitted by the Member, as ‘inadmissible’ evidence, failure to give reasons for considering that the whole salary was ‘unduly paid’, even though only six months of the thirty month contract were fully investigated, and failure to give reasons for contradicting OLAF’s findings, which exonerated the Applicant of any dishonesty.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact.






(1)  Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 P 45, p. 1385)

(2)  Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2009/C 159/01) (OJ 2009 C 159, p. 1)

(3)  Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom) (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1).
Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 173/04
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2021173EN.01000501.xml










7.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/5






Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 173/04)






Member State


France




Route concerned


Brive – Paris (Orly)




Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation


28 October 1995




Date of entry into force of the changes


5 January 2022




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


Order of 16 March 2021 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Brive and Paris (Orly)
NOR: TRAA2104147A
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
For further information please contact:





Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile




DTA/SDS1




50 rue Henry Farman




75720 Paris CEDEX 15




FRANCE




Tel. +33 158094321
osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Case C-299/21 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2021 by EM against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-599/19 EM v Parliament
Date: 2021-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: abuse of power, harassment at work, indemnification, pension scheme, psychological harassment, retirement conditions, right to justice, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2021431EN.01000601.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/6






Appeal brought on 7 May 2021 by EM against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-599/19 EM v Parliament
(Case C-299/21 P)
(2021/C 431/03)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19);










—


order the Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs, including those incurred before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first plea in law raised before the General Court, the appellant relied on infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as Article 12 and Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to provide assistance, and abuse of power. The General Court ruled on the first plea, divided into three parts, in paragraphs 42 to 131 of the judgment under appeal.
By the second plea in law raised before the General Court, the appellant relied on infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, as well as a manifest error of assessment. The General Court ruled on this plea in paragraphs 142 to 159 of the judgment under appeal.
In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts, and manifest errors of assessment resulting in a statement of reasons that is insufficient and legally imprecise. The General Court therefore ruled infra petita. In the context of the appeal, the appellant contests, in particular, paragraphs 51 to 57, 66 to 69, 100 to 103, 109, 126 to131, 145 to 146, 148 to 149 and 170 to 171 of the judgment under appeal.