do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-431/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, right of establishment, special tax, tax inspection, tax law, tax on income, taxpayer








C_2021401EN.01000502.xml










4.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen
(Case C-431/21)
(2021/C 401/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremen

Question referred

Must Article 43 of the EC Treaty and Article 49 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment (or, respectively, Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 56 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom to provide services), be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in situations involving transactions with a foreign element, the taxpayer must keep records on the nature and content of his or her business relations with related parties, including the economic and legal bases for an arm’s length agreement on prices and other terms and conditions with the related parties, and under which, where the taxpayer fails to submit those records when requested to do so by the tax authority, or where the records submitted are fundamentally unusable, not only is there a rebuttable presumption that his or her income subject to tax domestically, which such records serve to determine, is higher than the income that he or she has declared, and, if in such cases the tax authority is required to make an estimate and such income can be determined only within a certain range, in particular only on the basis of price bands, the upper value of that range may be taken as the basis to the detriment of the taxpayer, but, in addition, a surcharge is to be imposed which is at least 5 per cent and at most 10 per cent of the excess income determined, but not less than EUR 5 000, and which, in the event that usable records are submitted late, is up to EUR 1 000 000, but not less than EUR 100 for each full day of delay, whereby the imposition of a surcharge is to be waived only if the non-compliance with the record-keeping obligations appears to be excusable or if any fault involved is only minor?
Case C-795/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 4(1) — Article 5 — National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers — Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required — Absolute bar to remaining in employment)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, incapacity for work, penitentiary staff, professional qualifications








C_2021349EN.01000602.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/6






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla
(Case C-795/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers - Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required - Absolute bar to remaining in employment)
(2021/C 349/07)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XX

Defendant: Tartu Vangla

Interveners: Justiitsminister, Tervise- ja tööminister, Õiguskantsler

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a), Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an absolute bar to a prison officer remaining in employment when his or her auditory acuity does not meet the minimum standards of sound perception prescribed by that legislation, without allowing it to be ascertained whether that officer is capable of fulfilling those duties, where appropriate after the adoption of reasonable accommodation measures within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.01.2020.
Case C-911/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 263 and 267 TFEU — EU act which is not legally binding — Judicial review — Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) — Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products — Validity — Competence of the EBA)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU act, EU banking union, European Banking Authority, banking supervision, judicial review, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2021382EN.01000301.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)
(Case C-911/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 263 and 267 TFEU - EU act which is not legally binding - Judicial review - Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) - Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products - Validity - Competence of the EBA)
(2021/C 382/03)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fédération bancaire française (FBF)

Defendant: Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18) may not be the object of an action for annulment under that article;










2.


Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court has jurisdiction, under that article, to assess the validity of measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18);










3.


EU law does not require that the admissibility, before a national jurisdiction, of a plea of illegality directed against an EU measure be subject to the condition that that measure directly and individually concerns the person relying on that plea;










4.


Consideration of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the guidelines of the European Banking Authority, of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18).






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case C-758/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OH v ID (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Articles 11, 17 and 19 — Former member of the European Commission — Immunity from jurisdiction — Claim for non-contractual liability — Waiver of immunity — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commissioner, Protocol (EU), civil liability proceedings, jurisdiction, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_2021349EN.01000601.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/6






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OH v ID
(Case C-758/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Articles 11, 17 and 19 - Former member of the European Commission - Immunity from jurisdiction - Claim for non-contractual liability - Waiver of immunity - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)
(2021/C 349/06)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OH

Defendant: ID

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction, to the exclusion of national courts, to hear and determine an action for non-contractual liability brought by a former member of the temporary staff of the European Commission on account of wrongful conduct which he attributes to the member of that institution, for whom he was an employee and which, it is claimed, led the institution to terminate the employment relationship with that member of staff. Such an action must be directed not against the member of the Commission concerned, but against the European Union, represented by the Commission.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Case C-60/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2012/34/EU — Single European railway area — Article 13(2) and (6) — Access to service facilities and to rail-related services — Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 — Reconversion of facilities — Powers of the regulatory body)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building, lease, rail transport, service, transport company








C_2021349EN.01000901.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija
(Case C-60/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2012/34/EU - Single European railway area - Article 13(2) and (6) - Access to service facilities and to rail-related services - Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 - Reconversion of facilities - Powers of the regulatory body)
(2021/C 349/11)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS

Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

intervener:‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ AS

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply all railway undertakings with non-discriminatory access to service facilities, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, referred to in point 2 of Annex II thereto, cannot be imposed on the owners of such facilities who are not operators of those facilities;










2.


Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the owner of a building housing a service facility, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, which is in use, intends to terminate a lease agreement relating to that building in order to reallocate the latter to its own use.






(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Case C-848/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Republic of Poland, European Commission, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania (Appeal — Article 194(1) TFEU — Principle of energy solidarity — Directive 2009/73/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Article 36(1) — Decision of the European Commission on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation following a request by the German regulatory authority — Action for annulment)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: derogation from EU law, energy supply, energy transport, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, security of supply, single market








C_2021349EN.01000701.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Republic of Poland, European Commission, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania
(Case C-848/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 194(1) TFEU - Principle of energy solidarity - Directive 2009/73/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Article 36(1) - Decision of the European Commission on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation following a request by the German regulatory authority - Action for annulment)
(2021/C 349/08)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and D. Klebs, acting as Agents, and by H. Haller, T. Heitling, L. Reiser and V. Vacha, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kawnik and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented: initially by K. Pommere, V. Soņeca and E. Bārdiņš, and subsequently by K. Pommere, V. Kalniņa and E. Bārdiņš, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;










3.


Orders the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10300 — TIAA/AP1/AP2/GPIF/Courbevoie) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 291/01
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, Japan, Sweden, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, real property








C_2021291EN.01000101.xml










21.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10300 — TIAA/AP1/AP2/GPIF/Courbevoie)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 291/01)
On 15 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 32021M10300. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 July 2021 2021/C 283/02
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021283EN.01000801.xml










15.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 July 2021
(2021/C 283/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1812 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4376 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85158 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2050 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0840 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3320 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,646 




HUF


Hungarian forint


358,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5736 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9287 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,1485 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5817 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4732 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1742 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6819 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5990 




KRW


South Korean won


1 355,24 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2975 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6268 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4928 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 107,91 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9616 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,365 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,4789 




THB


Thai baht


38,525 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0591 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5734 




INR


Indian rupee


87,9885 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-851/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — DK v European External Action Service (Appeal — Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Determination of that penalty — Withholding of an amount from the pension — Criminal conviction and civil sanction before national courts — Compensation, in whole or in part, for non-material damage caused to the European Union — Lack of relevance of that compensation — Article 10 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, equal treatment, pension scheme, principle of proportionality








C_2021349EN.01000801.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/8






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — DK v European External Action Service
(Case C-851/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Determination of that penalty - Withholding of an amount from the pension - Criminal conviction and civil sanction before national courts - Compensation, in whole or in part, for non-material damage caused to the European Union - Lack of relevance of that compensation - Article 10 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)
(2021/C 349/09)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: DK (represented: initially by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders DK to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-435/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v HG
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline








C_2021422EN.01000501.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v HG
(Case C-435/21)
(2021/C 422/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: easyJet Airline Company Ltd.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: HG
The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 10 August 2021.
Case C-325/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 14(6) — Freedom of establishment — Commercial operating permit issued by a collegiate body — Body made up of, inter alia, recognised experts representative of the economic fabric — Persons potentially constituting or representing competing operators of the applicant for authorisation — Prohibition)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, right of establishment, trade licence








C_2021349EN.01001101.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/11






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales
(Case C-325/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 14(6) - Freedom of establishment - Commercial operating permit issued by a collegiate body - Body made up of, inter alia, recognised experts representative of the economic fabric - Persons potentially constituting or representing competing operators of the applicant for authorisation - Prohibition)
(2021/C 349/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits the presence, within a collegiate body responsible for issuing opinions on the granting of commercial operating permits, of recognised experts representative of the local economic fabric in the relevant catchment area, even if those experts do not take part in the vote on the application for authorisation and merely present the situation of that economic fabric and the impact of the project on that economic fabric, in so far as the actual or potential competitors of the applicant participate in the appointment of those persons.


(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.