do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-368/21: Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Di Taranto v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, appointment of members








C_2021368EN.01002401.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/24






Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Di Taranto v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
(Case T-368/21)
(2021/C 368/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Alessandro Di Taranto (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Pellegrino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Decision of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 3 May 2021 on the appointment of fifteen European Delegated Prosecutors of the EPPO in the Italian Republic, appointing the European Delegated Prosecutors of the Italian State;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging unlawfulness as a result of the unlawful nature of the preliminary and binding decision of 28 April 2021 adopted by the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (Supreme Council of the Judiciary), which is the competent authority in Italy for designating European Delegated Prosecutors (EDPs).
As an interim measure, the applicant challenges the decision of the College of the EPPO appointing the EDPs, claiming that it is vitiated as a result of the unlawfulness of the decision of 28 April 2021 by which the Supreme Council of the Judiciary approved the final determination in which Dottore Di Taranto, with regard to the three prosecutors to be appointed for the office in Rome, was classified after the other candidates.
Case C-521/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Tax inspection — Supply of services as an activity of an agent for performing artists — Transactions subject to VAT — Transactions not declared to the tax authority and not invoiced — Fraud — Reconstitution of the taxable amount for income tax purposes — Principle of VAT neutrality — Inclusion of VAT in the reconstituted taxable amount)
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, basis of tax assessment, misuse of a right, restriction on competition, tax evasion, tax inspection








C_2021329EN.01000201.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/2






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia
(Case C-521/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Tax inspection - Supply of services as an activity of an agent for performing artists - Transactions subject to VAT - Transactions not declared to the tax authority and not invoiced - Fraud - Reconstitution of the taxable amount for income tax purposes - Principle of VAT neutrality - Inclusion of VAT in the reconstituted taxable amount)
(2021/C 329/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CB

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 73 and 78 thereof, read in the light of the principle of neutrality of value added tax (VAT), must be interpreted as meaning that, where taxable persons for VAT purposes, by fraud, have not indicated the existence of the transaction to the tax authority, issued invoices or shown the income generated during that transaction in a direct tax declaration, the reconstitution, as part of an inspection of that declaration, of the amounts paid and received during the transaction at issue by the tax authority concerned must be regarded as a price already including VAT, unless, under national law, the taxable persons have the possibility of subsequently passing on and deducting the VAT at issue, notwithstanding the fraud.


(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission 2021/C 257 I/02
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








CI2021257EN.01001601.xml










1.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 257/16







Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission
(2021/C 257 I/02)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
      
The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






i.


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and










ii.


made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:






i.


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 24 June 2021 – https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/87th-management-board-web-meeting, and










ii.


the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg




EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.
Case T-372/21: Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, distance selling, non-woven fabric, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, retail selling, textile product, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2021329EN.01004101.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/41






Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)
(Case T-372/21)
(2021/C 329/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sympatex Technologies GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liwe Española, SA (Puente Tocinos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union work mark Sympathy Inside — Application for registration No 16 286 106

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1777/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the opposition against the European Union trademark application No 16 286 106 ‘Sympathy Inside’ (word mark) in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the court proceedings and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-406/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 July 2021 — A Oy v B Ky and joint heirs of C
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: deadline for payment, debt, interest, legal expenses








C_2021368EN.01001101.xml










13.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 July 2021 — A Oy v B Ky and joint heirs of C
(Case C-406/21)
(2021/C 368/09)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A Oy

Respondents: B Ky and joint heirs of C

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may exclude from the scope of that directive a contractual practice relating to penalties for late payment which the parties engaged in on a consistent basis in respect of individual orders prior to 16 March 2013, even if the individual orders in respect of which the enforcement of penalties for late payment is sought were placed after that date?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, is Article 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/7 to be interpreted as meaning that the contractual practice described in Question 1 is to be regarded as a contractual term or practice which excludes interest for late payment or compensation for recovery costs within the meaning of those provisions?






(1)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10327 — Elexent/GP JOULE Connect/Elexent DACH JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 269/02
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, land transport, merger control, provision of services








C_2021269EN.01000201.xml










7.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10327 — Elexent/GP JOULE Connect/Elexent DACH JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 269/02)
On 1 July 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 32021M10327. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-373/21: Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business administration, business management, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2021338EN.01002801.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/28






Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)
(Case T-373/21)
(2021/C 338/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark NICOLAS — European Union trade mark No 6 231 484

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 21 April 2021 in Case R 1195/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.
Case C-636/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Union Customs Code — Article 22(6) — Article 29 — Right to be heard — Procedures initiated ex officio — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, customs regulations, rights of the defence








C_2021382EN.01000601.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/6






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-636/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union Customs Code - Article 22(6) - Article 29 - Right to be heard - Procedures initiated ex officio - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(2021/C 382/07)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Pécs Court, Hungary), made by decision of 30 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Corrigendum to Publication of an application for approval of a non-minor amendment to a product specification pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Official Journal of the European Union C 398 of 23 November 2020) 2021/C 257/03
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, beer, consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products








C_2021257EN.01000401.xml










1.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/4






Corrigendum to Publication of an application for approval of a non-minor amendment to a product specification pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 398 of 23 November 2020
)

(2021/C 257/03)
On page 29, point 3.6 Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name:
for:

‘Münchener Bier’ or ‘Münchner Bier’,

read:

‘Münchener Bier’ or ‘Münchner Bier’.
Case C-301/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — European Certificate of Succession — Validity of a certified copy of the certificate not having an expiration date — Article 65(1) — Article 69 — Effects of the certificate as regards the persons who are designated on it but have not requested it to be issued — Article 70(3) — Date to take into account for the assessment of the validity of the copy — Evidential effects of the copy)
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, official document








C_2021329EN.01000401.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/4






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG
(Case C-301/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - European Certificate of Succession - Validity of a certified copy of the certificate not having an expiration date - Article 65(1) - Article 69 - Effects of the certificate as regards the persons who are designated on it but have not requested it to be issued - Article 70(3) - Date to take into account for the assessment of the validity of the copy - Evidential effects of the copy)
(2021/C 329/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: UE, HC

Defendant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Interested party: Estate of VJ

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a certified copy of the European Certificate of Succession, bearing the words ‘unlimited duration’, is valid for a period of six months from the date of issue and produces its effects, within the meaning of Article 69 of that regulation, if it was valid when it was presented to the competent authority;










2.


Article 65(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, read in conjunction with Article 69(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the effects of the European Certificate of Succession are produced with respect to all persons who are named therein, even if they have not themselves requested that it be issued.






(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/1127 of 1 July 2021 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (EU BAM Rafah/1/2021)
Date: 2021-07-01
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Palestine, border control, cross-border cooperation, frontier








L_2021244EN.01000101.xml










9.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 244/1








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1127
of 1 July 2021
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (EU BAM Rafah/1/2021)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 13 October 2020 the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/1548 (2), appointing Mr Mihai-Florin BULGARIU as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah from 1 November 2020 to 30 June 2021.












(3)


On 28 June 2021 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1065 (3), extending the mandate of EU BAM Rafah from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.












(4)


The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Mihai-Florin BULGARIU as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 30 June 2022,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Mihai-Florin BULGARIU as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah is hereby extended from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 1 July 2021.




Done at Brussels, 1 July 2021.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28.

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2020/1548 of 13 October 2020 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (EU BAM Rafah/2/2020) (OJ L 354, 26.10.2020, p. 5).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1065 of 28 June 2021 amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (OJ L 229, 29.6.2021, p. 11).