do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-695/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(a) — Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ — Article 174(2) — Right to deduction — Proportional deduction — Extended warranties on household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment — Definition of ‘financial transactions’)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, dealer, financial services, household electrical appliance, insurance, producer's liability, provision of services, sale, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2021338EN.01000301.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-695/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(a) - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Article 174(2) - Right to deduction - Proportional deduction - Extended warranties on household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment - Definition of ‘financial transactions’)
(2021/C 338/03)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 174(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 135(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to transactions involving intermediation in the sale of warranty extensions that are performed by a taxable person in the course of its main activity consisting in the sale to consumers of household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment, with the consequence that the amount of turnover relating to those transactions must not be excluded from the denominator of the fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion referred to in Article 174(1) of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
Case C-71/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against VAS Shipping ApS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — National legislation requiring third-country nationals employed on a vessel flying the flag of a Member State to hold a work permit in that Member State — Exemption covering vessels that call at the Member State’s port no more than 25 times in a one-year period — Restriction — Article 79(5) TFEU — National legislation aimed at fixing the volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to the territory of the Member State concerned in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, crew, establishment, foreign national, harbour installation, right of establishment, ship's flag, third country, vessel, work permit








C_2021338EN.01000501.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against VAS Shipping ApS
(Case C-71/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - National legislation requiring third-country nationals employed on a vessel flying the flag of a Member State to hold a work permit in that Member State - Exemption covering vessels that call at the Member State’s port no more than 25 times in a one-year period - Restriction - Article 79(5) TFEU - National legislation aimed at fixing the volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to the territory of the Member State concerned in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed)
(2021/C 338/06)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Party in the main criminal proceedings

VAS Shipping ApS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, read in the light of Article 79(5) TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a first Member State which provides that crew members, who are third-country nationals, of a vessel flying the flag of that Member State and owned, directly or indirectly, by a company with its head office in a second Member State must hold a work permit in that first Member State, unless the vessel concerned has made no more than 25 calls to ports in the first Member State in one year


(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10317 — Macquarie/Warburg Pincus/PTSG) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 309/05
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building safety, building services, economic concentration, investment company, maintenance, merger control, provision of services, supply








C_2021309EN.01000501.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10317 — Macquarie/Warburg Pincus/PTSG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 309/05)
On 8 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 32021M10317. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Special report No 12/2021 The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions 2021/C 272/04
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, cost of pollution, decontamination, environmental impact, environmental liability, polluter pays principle, pollution, prevention of pollution, waste management








C_2021272EN.01003001.xml










8.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 272/30






Special report No 12/2021
The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions
(2021/C 272/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 12/2021 ‘The Polluter Pays Principle: inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case C-417/21 P: Appeal brought on 8 July 2021 by repowermap.org against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-872/16, repowermap.org v EUIPO and Repower
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, transmission network








C_2021462EN.01002502.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/25






Appeal brought on 8 July 2021 by repowermap.org against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-872/16, repowermap.org v EUIPO and Repower
(Case C-417/21 P)
(2021/C 462/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: repowermap.org (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado, and W. Sakulin, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Repower AG
By order of 8 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Case C-419/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2021 — X sp. z o.o., sp. k. v Z
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, commercial contract, commercial transaction, deadline for payment, delivery, supply








C_2021490EN.01001502.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2021 — X sp. z o.o., sp. k. v Z
(Case C-419/21)
(2021/C 490/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X sp. z o.o., sp. k.

Defendant: Z

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a contract in which the parties provided for several deliveries of goods and in which payment for each delivery was due within a certain time limit after that delivery, a fixed sum of EUR 40, as a minimum, is payable for each late payment for an individual delivery, or does European Union law merely require that the creditor be paid a fixed sum of EUR 40 in respect of the entire commercial transaction which comprises several deliveries irrespective of the number of late payments for individual deliveries?










2.


Within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, does a contract for the supply of goods that obliges the supplier to supply to the contracting authority, for a price agreed in that contract, a certain quantity of goods and at the same time grants the contracting authority the right to determine unilaterally the timing and volumes of the individual deliveries comprising execution of the subject of the contract, including the possibility of opting out from receiving some of the goods contracted for without suffering any negative consequences, and obliges the contracting authority to pay for each part delivery within a certain time limit calculated from receipt of that part delivery, constitute a single commercial transaction, or does each of those part deliveries, which are based on the contracting authority’s stated requirements, constitute a separate commercial transaction within the meaning of the directive, even though it does not constitute a separate contract under national law?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
Case C-295/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Sanresa’ UAB v Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Award of a public contract for waste treatment services — Directive 2014/24/EU — Articles 58 and 70 — Classification of the obligation on the operator to hold prior written consent for cross-border shipments of waste — Condition for the performance of the contract)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, export of waste, invitation to tender, public procurement, services contract, waste management








C_2021338EN.01000802.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/8






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Sanresa’ UAB v Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos
(Case C-295/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Award of a public contract for waste treatment services - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 58 and 70 - Classification of the obligation on the operator to hold prior written consent for cross-border shipments of waste - Condition for the performance of the contract)
(2021/C 338/10)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Sanresa’ UAB

Defendant: Aplinkos apsaugos departamentas prie Aplinkos ministerijos

Interveners: ‘Toksika’ UAB, ‘Žalvaris’ UAB, ‘Palemono keramikos gamykla’ AB, ‘Ekometrija’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 18(2) and Articles 58 and 70 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract for waste management services, the obligation on an economic operator who wishes to ship waste from one Member State to another Member State to possess, in accordance in particular with Article 2(35) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, the consent of the competent authorities of the States concerned by that shipment constitutes a condition for the performance of that contract.










2.


Article 70 of Directive 2014/24, read in conjunction with Article 18(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of a tenderer’s tender on the sole ground that that tenderer fails to provide proof, when submitting its tender, that it satisfied a condition for the performance of the contract in question.






(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Corrigendum to Council Decision of 23 April 2021 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 (2021/C 161 I/02) (Official Journal of the European Union C 161 I of 3 May 2021) 2021/C 272 I/02
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU aid, EU expenditure, amending budget, coronavirus disease, draft budget (EU), epidemic, financial year, general budget (EU)








CI2021272EN.01002401.xml










8.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 272/24






Corrigendum to Council Decision of 23 April 2021 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 (2021/C 161 I/02)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 161 I of 3 May 2021
)

(2021/C 272 I/02)
On page 2, the first indent:
for:






‘—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 17 March 2021 (2);’,




read:






‘—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2);’.
European Parliament decision of 8 July 2021 on the numerical strength of the special committees and the committee of inquiry (2021/2802(RSO))
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EP Committee, committee of inquiry, operation of the Institutions, specialised committee








C_2022099EN.01036201.xml










1.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/362






P9_TA(2021)0354
Numerical strength of the special committees and the committee of inquiry
European Parliament decision of 8 July 2021 on the numerical strength of the special committees and the committee of inquiry (2021/2802(RSO))
(2022/C 99/45)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the proposal from the Conference of Presidents,










—


having regard to its decision of 18 June 2020 on setting up a special committee on beating cancer, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (1),










—


having regard to its decision of 18 June 2020 on setting up a special committee on foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (2),










—


having regard to its decision of 18 June 2020 on setting up a special committee on artificial intelligence in a digital age, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (3),










—


having regard to its decision of 19 June 2020 on setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (4),










—


having regard to Rules 207 and 208 of its Rules of Procedure,












1.


Decides that the numerical strength of the special committees and the committee of inquiry shall be as follows:






—


Special Committee on Beating Cancer: 34 members










—


Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation: 34 members










—


Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age: 34 members










—


Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport within and outside the EU: 31 members
















2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.






(1)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0160.

(2)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0161.

(3)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0162.

(4)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0163.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 July 2021 2021/C 272/03
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021272EN.01002901.xml










8.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 272/29






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2021
(2021/C 272/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1831 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,86 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85500 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1813 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0917 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2475 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,688 




HUF


Hungarian forint


355,57 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5192 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9268 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2566 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5711 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4708 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1900 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6760 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5924 




KRW


South Korean won


1 344,89 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8666 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6478 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4867 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 146,47 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9241 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,960 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,8009 




THB


Thai baht


38,173 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1224 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5724 




INR


Indian rupee


88,2825 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-75/21: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2021 — Mendes de Almeida v Council (Action for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 — Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office — Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Portugal — Period for instituting proceedings — Starting point of the period for instituting proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Public Prosecutor's Office, Portugal, administrator, appointment of members, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, limitation of legal proceedings, servant (EU)








C_2021338EN.01002301.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/23






Order of the General Court of 8 July 2021 — Mendes de Almeida v Council
(Case T-75/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Portugal - Period for instituting proceedings - Starting point of the period for instituting proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 338/30)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Ana Mendes de Almeida (Sobreda, Portugal) (represented by: R. Leandro Vasconcelos and M. Marques de Carvalho, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak, R. Meyer, K. Kouri and J. Gil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p. 18), in so far as it appoints Mr Moreira Alves d’Oliveira Guerra as European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as temporary agent at grade AD 13 for a non-renewable period of three years from 29 July 2020.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to rule on the request for an expedited procedure.










3.


There is no longer any need to rule on the cross-claim made by the Council.










4.


Ms Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.