do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-107/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9 — Czech Republic — XR v Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ — Break during which the employee must remain ready to respond to a call-out within a two-minute time limit — Primacy of EU law)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Prague, arrangement of working time, rest period, transport company








C_2021462EN.01000702.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/7






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9 — Czech Republic — XR v Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost
(Case C-107/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ - Break during which the employee must remain ready to respond to a call-out within a two-minute time limit - Primacy of EU law)
(2021/C 462/05)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XR

Defendant: Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working times must be interpreted as meaning that the break granted to a worker during his or her daily working time, during which the worker must be ready to respond to a call-out within a time limit of two minutes if necessary, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances that the limitations imposed on that worker are such as to affect objectively and very significantly the worker’s ability to manage freely the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests;










2.


The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as precluding a national court, ruling following the setting aside of its judgment by a higher court, from being bound, in accordance with national procedural law, by the legal rulings of that higher court, where those assessments are not compatible with EU law.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case C-406/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Phantasialand v Finanzamt Brühl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98 — Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services — Annex III, point 7 — Admission fee for amusement parks and fairs — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Services provided by static and mobile fairground entertainers — Comparability — Context — Point of view of the average consumer — Expert opinion)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, consumer, expert's report ordered by a court, leisure park, provision of services, tax relief








C_2021471EN.01001001.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/10






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Phantasialand v Finanzamt Brühl
(Case C-406/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 7 - Admission fee for amusement parks and fairs - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Services provided by static and mobile fairground entertainers - Comparability - Context - Point of view of the average consumer - Expert opinion)
(2021/C 471/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Phantasialand

Defendant: Finanzamt Brühl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, first, services provided by mobile fairground entertainers and, second, those provided by static fairground entertainers in the form of amusement parks are subject to different rates of value added tax, one reduced and the other normal, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality is respected. European Union law does not preclude the referring court, where it encounters particular difficulties in verifying compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, from requesting, in accordance with the conditions laid down in national law, an expert opinion intended to inform its judgment.


(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Case T-881/19: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2021 — GABO:mi v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) — ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Grant agreements — Set-off of claims — Identification of the defendant — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, claim, debt, eligibility criteria, financial solvency, provision of services, reimbursement of aid, research project








C_2021452EN.01003802.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/38






Order of the General Court of 9 September 2021 — GABO:mi v Commission
(Case T-881/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) - ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Grant agreements - Set-off of claims - Identification of the defendant - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 452/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, M. Ilkova, L. Mantl, and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission reimburse the eligible costs incurred by the applicant, first, between August 2015 and April 2016 and, secondly, during the period of the preliminary insolvency proceedings, namely EUR 1 680 681,82, plus interest of EUR 76 552,60, in respect of the grant agreements awarded under the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities and the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10371 — SIBUR/TAIF) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 363/04
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, energy industry, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals








C_2021363EN.01000501.xml










9.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10371 — SIBUR/TAIF)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 363/04)

1.   
On 2 September 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Public Joint-Stock Company Sibur Holding (‘SIBUR’, Russia),










—


Joint-Stock Company TAIF (‘TAIF’, Russia).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for SIBUR: (a) olefins and polyolefins (polypropylene, polyethylene, BOPP films, etc.); and (b) plastics, elastomers and intermediates (synthetic rubbers, expanded polystyrene, PET, etc.),










—


for TAIF: olefins, ethylene oxide, ethylene glycol, polymers and synthetic rubbers, as well as oil and gas processing, chemicals, petrochemicals and power engineering, investment and other services.






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.10371 — SIBUR/TAIF
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 C-277/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by UM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Succession — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 3(1)(b) — Concept of ‘agreement as to succession’ — Scope — Contract transferring ownership mortis causa — Article 83(2) — Choice of applicable law — Transitional provisions)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, private international law








C_2021471EN.01000801.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by UM
(Case C-277/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 3(1)(b) - Concept of ‘agreement as to succession’ - Scope - Contract transferring ownership mortis causa - Article 83(2) - Choice of applicable law - Transitional provisions)
(2021/C 471/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UM

Interested parties: HW, as administrator of the estate of ZL, Marktgemeinde Kötschach-Mauthen, Finanzamt Spittal Villach

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(1)(b) 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 contract under which a person provides for the future transfer, on death, of ownership of immovable property belonging to him or her to other parties to the contract is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision;










2.


Article 83(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the examination of the validity of a choice of applicable law, made before 17 August 2015, to govern only an agreement as to succession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, in respect of a particular asset of the deceased, and not the latter’s succession as a whole.






(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 8 September 2021 2021/C 363/01
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021363EN.01000101.xml










9.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 September 2021
(2021/C 363/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1827 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85873 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1740 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0888 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2650 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,394 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,14 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5178 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9495 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,9891 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6027 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4982 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1971 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6633 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5909 




KRW


South Korean won


1 377,95 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8839 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6376 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4790 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 871,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9135 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,282 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,6260 




THB


Thai baht


38,710 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1718 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5314 




INR


Indian rupee


87,0105 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of No 12/21/COL of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238] (Official Journal of the European Union L 271 of 29 July 2021)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, export, export aid, export credit, export credit insurance








L_2021318EN.01000101.xml










9.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 318/1







Corrigendum to EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238]

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 271 of 29 July 2021
)


On the cover page, and on page 1, in the title:
for:


                  ‘EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238]’,

read:


                  ‘EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 12/21/COL of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238]’.
Corrigendum to EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision No 29/21/COL of 13 April 2021 recognising the disease-free status of Norway regarding Brucella melitensis in small ruminants [2021/1331] (Official Journal of the European Union L 290 of 12 August 2021)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, brucellosis, goat, sheep, vaccination, veterinary inspection








L_2021318EN.01000201.xml










9.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 318/2







Corrigendum to EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision of 13 April 2021 recognising the disease-free status of Norway regarding Brucella melitensis in small ruminants [2021/1331]

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 290 of 12 August 2021
)


On the cover page, and on page 3, in the title:
for:


                  ‘EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision of 13 April 2021 recognising the disease-free status of Norway regarding Brucella melitensis in small ruminants [2021/1331]’,

read:


                  ‘EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision No 29/21/COL of 13 April 2021 recognising the disease-free status of Norway regarding Brucella melitensis in small ruminants [2021/1331]’.
Notice of open competition 2021/C 363/02
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), data protection, job vacancy, personal data, recruitment








C_2021363EN.01000201.xml










9.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/2






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2021/C 363/02)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AD/393/21 - ADMINISTRATORS (AD 6) IN THE FIELD OF DATA PROTECTION
The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union C … A of 9 September 2021.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Corrigendum to the call for applications for the selection of the Controller of procedural guarantees in the context of investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – COM/2021/20062 (OJ C 279 A, 13.7.2021)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, competition (EU), criminal procedure, fraud against the EU, job vacancy, operation of the Institutions, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)




CI2021363EN.01000101.xml










9.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 363/1






Corrigendum to the call for applications for the selection of the Controller of procedural guarantees in the context of investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – COM/2021/20062
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 279 A of 13 July 2021
)
(2021/C 363 I/01)
On page 3, in point 4, under ‘Closing date’, first paragraph:







for:





‘The closing date for registration is 9 September 2021. Online registration will not be possible after 12.00 noon Brussels time.’,













read:






‘The closing date for registration is 23 September 2021. Online registration will not be possible after 12.00 noon Brussels time.’.
Case C-555/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 September 2021 — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, bank charges, consumer credit, consumer information, interest, mortgage, real estate credit, real property, redemption








C_2021513EN.01001901.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 September 2021 — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
(Case C-555/21)
(2021/C 513/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: UniCredit Bank Austria AG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Question referred

Is Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the sum of interest to be paid by the borrower and the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement to be proportionally reduced in the event that the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, with no corresponding rule for costs that are not dependent on the duration of the agreement?


(1)  OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34.
Case C-449/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Real Vida Seguros SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Dividends attached to listed shares — Tax advantage reserved for dividends attached to shares listed on the national stock exchange — Difference in treatment — Objective distinguishing criterion — Restriction — Article 65 TFEU — Objectively comparable situations — Justification — Objective of a purely economic nature)
Date: 2021-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, capital gains tax, equal treatment, free movement of capital, share, stock-exchange listing








C_2021471EN.01001101.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/11






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Real Vida Seguros SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-449/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Dividends attached to listed shares - Tax advantage reserved for dividends attached to shares listed on the national stock exchange - Difference in treatment - Objective distinguishing criterion - Restriction - Article 65 TFEU - Objectively comparable situations - Justification - Objective of a purely economic nature)
(2021/C 471/14)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Real Vida Seguros SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax practice according to which, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of a taxpayer’s income tax, the dividends attached to shares listed on that Member State’s stock exchange account for only 50 % of their amount, whereas dividends attached to shares listed on the stock exchanges of the other Member States are taken into account in full.


(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.