do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-70/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Metamorfoza v EUIPO — Tiesios kreivės (MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS — Earlier EU figurative mark MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, education, museum, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021252EN.01002101.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/21






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Metamorfoza v EUIPO — Tiesios kreivės (MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS)
(Case T-70/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS - Earlier EU figurative mark MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 252/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Metamorfoza d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Bijelić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tiesios kreivės (Vilnius, Lithuania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 (Case R 663/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Tiesios kreivės and Metamorfoza.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2019 (Case R 663/2019-2);










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Case C-844/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — CS, Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Graz-Stadt, formerly Finanzamt Graz-Stadt v Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Judenburg Liezen, formerly Finanzamt Judenburg Liezen, technoRent International GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Reduction of the taxable amount — Article 183 — Refund of excess VAT — Default interest — No national rule — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Direct effect of provisions of EU law — Principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, establishment, interest, tax rebate, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2021278EN.01000901.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/9






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — CS, Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Graz-Stadt, formerly Finanzamt Graz-Stadt v Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Judenburg Liezen, formerly Finanzamt Judenburg Liezen, technoRent International GmbH
(Case C-844/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the taxable amount - Article 183 - Refund of excess VAT - Default interest - No national rule - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Direct effect of provisions of EU law - Principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law)
(2021/C 278/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: CS, Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Graz-Stadt, formerly Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

Defendants: Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Judenburg Liezen, formerly Finanzamt Judenburg Liezen, technoRent International GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) and Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as meaning that a refund resulting from an adjustment of the taxable amount under Article 90(1) of that directive must, like a refund of excess value added tax under Article 183 of that directive, give rise to the payment of interest where it is not made within a reasonable period of time. It is for the referring court to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to give full effect to those provisions by interpreting national law in conformity with EU law.


(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case T-199/18: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — SCF Terminal (Cyprus) and SHB v Council and Others
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, financial aid, financial institution, financial stability, indemnification, interest, sustainable development








C_2021263EN.01003702.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/37






Order of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — SCF Terminal (Cyprus) and SHB v Council and Others
(Case T-199/18) (1)

(2021/C 263/48)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Cases T-816/17 and T-318/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Luxembourg and Amazon v Commission (State aid — Aid implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery — Tax ruling — Transfer pricing — Selective tax advantage — Transfer pricing arrangement — Functional analysis)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, electronics industry, reimbursement of aid, tax relief, tax system, transfer pricing








C_2021263EN.01001302.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/13






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Luxembourg and Amazon v Commission
(Cases T-816/17 and T-318/18) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Transfer pricing - Selective tax advantage - Transfer pricing arrangement - Functional analysis)
(2021/C 263/18)
Language of the case: English and French

Parties


Applicant in Case T-816/17: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: T. Uri, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck, A. Steichen and J. Bracker, lawyers)

Applicants in Case T-318/18: Amazon EU Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Amazon.com, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: D. Paemen, M. Petite and A. Tombiński, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Case T-816/17, by P. Stancanelli, P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents, and by M. Chammas, lawyer, and, in Case T-318/18, by P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-816/17: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty, Barrister, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Re:

Actions pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/859 of 4 October 2017 on State aid SA.38944 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon (OJ 2018 L 153, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Joins Cases T-816/17 and T-318/18 for the purposes of the present judgment;










2.


Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2018/859 of 4 October 2017 on State aid SA.38944 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of Amazon;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon EU Sàrl;










4.


Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Case T-789/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Trade with territories under military occupation — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Common commercial policy — Article 207 TFEU — Common foreign and security policy — Article 215 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Treaty on European Union, Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, common commercial policy, common foreign and security policy, international law, military occupation, petition, trade policy








C_2021263EN.01001802.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/18






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission
(Case T-789/19) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Trade with territories under military occupation - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Common commercial policy - Article 207 TFEU - Common foreign and security policy - Article 215 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011)
(2021/C 263/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Tom Moerenhout (Humbeek, Belgium) and the six other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1567 of 4 September 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’ (OJ 2019 L 241, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1567 of 4 September 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case C-87/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt B v XY (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein — Regulations (EC) No 338/97 and (EC) No 865/2006 — Sturgeon caviar — Introduction into the customs territory of to the European Union for personal and household effects — Import permit — Derogation — Limit of 125 grams per person — Exceeded — Intention to give as a gift to a third party)
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs territory (EU), derogation from EU law, fish product, import licence, protected species, protection of animal life








C_2021278EN.01001901.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/19






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt B v XY
(Case C-87/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein - Regulations (EC) No 338/97 and (EC) No 865/2006 - Sturgeon caviar - Introduction into the customs territory of to the European Union for personal and household effects - Import permit - Derogation - Limit of 125 grams per person - Exceeded - Intention to give as a gift to a third party)
(2021/C 278/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hauptzollamt B

Defendant: XY

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1320/2014 of 1 December 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that sturgeon caviar, when brought into the customs territory of the European Union, may be regarded as a ‘personal or household item’ within the meaning of that provision, when it is intended to be offered as a gift to a third party, provided that there is no evidence of a commercial purpose, and may thus benefit from the derogation provided for in that provision from the obligation on the importer to present an import permit;










2.


Article 57(5)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation No 338/97, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/870 of 5 June 2015 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the quantity of sturgeon caviar brought into the customs territory of the European Union exceeds the limit of 125 grams per person and the importer is not in possession of a permit issued for the purpose of the import, the entire quantity of sturgeon caviar so imported is to be confiscated by the competent customs authority.






(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10122 — Mayr-Melnhof Karton/Kotkamills) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 184/10
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging, pulp and paper industry








C_2021184EN.01001501.xml










12.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10122 — Mayr-Melnhof Karton/Kotkamills)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 184/10)

1.   
On 4 May 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Mayr-Melnhof Cartonboard International GmbH (‘Mayr-Melnhof Cartonboard International’, Austria), belonging to the group Mayr-Melnhof Karton AG (‘MM’; together with its subsidiaries the ‘MM Group’),










—


Kotkamills Group Oyj (together with its subsidiaries ‘Kotkamills’, Finland).




MM acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Kotkamills.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for MM: production of cartonboard and packaging products, in particular folding cartons and, to a limited extent, (mechanical) pulp,










—


for Kotkamills: manufacture of virgin-fibre cartonboard, Saturating Base Kraft (‘SBK’) and sawn softwood.






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.10122 — Mayr-Melnhof Karton/Kotkamills
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’).
Case T-198/18: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co. v Council and Others
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, financial aid, financial institution, financial stability, indemnification, interest, sustainable development








C_2021263EN.01003701.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/37






Order of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co. v Council and Others
(Case T-198/18) (1)

(2021/C 263/47)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Case T-637/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Carpathian Springs (AQUA CARPATICA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AQUA CARPATICA — Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, delivery, distributor, non-alcoholic beverage, packaging, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2021252EN.01002001.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/20






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Carpathian Springs (AQUA CARPATICA)
(Case T-637/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AQUA CARPATICA - Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 252/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček and C. Saettel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carpathian Springs SA (Vatra Dornei, Romania) (represented by: D. Bogdan, G. Bozocea and M. Stănescu, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 (Case R 317/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Stars & Sons and Carpathian Springs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case C-304/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2021 — VT v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, police, recruitment








C_2021297EN.01002401.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2021 — VT v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane
(Case C-304/21)
(2021/C 297/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: VT

Respondents: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

Question referred

Must Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000, Article 3 TEU, Article 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the national legislation contained in Legislative Decree No 334/2000, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and in the secondary sources adopted by the Ministry of the Interior, which lays down an age limit of 30 years for participation in a selection procedure for posts of commissioner in the career bracket of State Police officers?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case T-167/20: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Tornado Boats International v EUIPO — Haygreen (TORNADO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU mark TORNADO — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vessel








C_2021252EN.01002201.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/22






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Tornado Boats International v EUIPO — Haygreen (TORNADO)
(Case T-167/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU mark TORNADO - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 252/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tornado Boats International ApS (Lystrup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: David Haygreen (Colwyn Bay, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Harrison, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2020 (Case R 1169/2018-1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Mr Haygreen and Tornado Boats International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tornado Boats International ApS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Mr David Haygreen to bear his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.