do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-55/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax system — Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification for the difference in treatment)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, goodwill, nationality of legal persons, shareholding, tax relief








C_2021481EN.01000601.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/6






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA v European Commission
(Case C-55/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)
(2021/C 481/08)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Case C-119/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding — National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Article 19(1)(a) — Business start-up aid for young farmers — Aid for the development of small farms — Cumulation of aid — Possibility to refuse the cumulation)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, rural development, smallholding, start-up, young farmer








C_2021490EN.01001001.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/10






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-119/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding - National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Article 19(1)(a) - Business start-up aid for young farmers - Aid for the development of small farms - Cumulation of aid - Possibility to refuse the cumulation)
(2021/C 490/07)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Līga Šenfelde

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as not precluding a farmer who has received business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, from cumulating that aid with business start-up aid for young farmers, provided for in point (a)(i) of that provision, in so far as the maximum amount of aid granted, as referred to in Article 19(6), is complied with;










2.


Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the granting of business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, prevents the recipient from securing business start-up aid for young farmers, as provided for in point (a)(i) thereof.






(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case T-196/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — AZ v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers — Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Concept of aid — State resources — Selectivity — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2021471EN.01004002.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/40






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — AZ v Commission
(Case T-196/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of aid - State resources - Selectivity - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations)
(2021/C 471/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: AZ (represented by: F. Wagner, D. Fouquet, T. Hartmann and M. Kachel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, and G. Quardt and C. von Donat, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/c) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AZ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10424 – FORESTAL ARAUCO / OTPPB / AGRICOLA NEUFUN JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 472/03
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Chile, economic concentration, horticulture, investment company, livestock farming, merger control, nut, pension scheme, silviculture, wood product








C_2021472EN.01000301.xml










23.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10424 – FORESTAL ARAUCO / OTPPB / AGRICOLA NEUFUN JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 472/03)
On 6 October 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 policy’ 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 32021M10424. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-643/20: Order of the President of the Court of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ENERGOTT Fejlesztő és Vagyonkezelő Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, debt, limitation of legal proceedings, tax rebate








C_2022051EN.01002401.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/24






Order of the President of the Court of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ENERGOTT Fejlesztő és Vagyonkezelő Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-643/20) (1)

(2022/C 51/33)
Language of the case: Hungarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Case T-254/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyj Octyabr (Representation of a lobster) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a lobster — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021481EN.01002202.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/22






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyj Octyabr (Representation of a lobster)
(Case T-254/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a lobster - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 481/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2020 (Case R 1916/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ and PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Joined Cases C-51/19 P and C-64/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-51/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (C-64/19 P) v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax system — Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification for the difference in treatment)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, goodwill, nationality of legal persons, shareholding, tax relief








C_2021481EN.01000302.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-51/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (C-64/19 P) v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland
(Joined Cases C-51/19 P and C-64/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)
(2021/C 481/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados) (C-51/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, and subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and S. Jiménez García, Agents) (C-64/19 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, Agents), Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders World Duty Free Group SA and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Case T-519/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — LP v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Refusal to offer employment — Conditions of employment — Character references — Manifest error of assessment — Due diligence)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), servant (EU)








C_2021471EN.01004601.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/46






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — LP v Parliament
(Case T-519/20) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Refusal to offer employment - Conditions of employment - Character references - Manifest error of assessment - Due diligence)
(2021/C 471/64)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: LP (represented by: J. Bosquet and G. Op de Beeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 22 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s application for employment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Case T-32/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko) (EU trade mark — EU word mark Muresko — Earlier national word marks Muresko — Claim for seniority of earlier national after registration of the EU trade mark marks — Articles 39 and 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Registration of earlier national marks having expired on the day of the claim)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, dyestuffs industry, metal coating, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, resin, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2021471EN.01004901.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/49






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)
(Case T-32/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark Muresko - Earlier national word marks Muresko - Claim for seniority of earlier national after registration of the EU trade mark marks - Articles 39 and 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Registration of earlier national marks having expired on the day of the claim)
(2021/C 471/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 1686/2020-4), concerning a claim for seniority of identical earlier national marks for the EU word mark Muresko No 15465719.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Case T-518/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance chlorothalonil — Non-renewal of inclusion in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Assessment procedure — Rights of the defence — Proposed classification of an active substance — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Precautionary principle)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, withdrawal from the market








C_2021481EN.01002201.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/22






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission
(Case T-518/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Non-renewal of inclusion in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Assessment procedure - Rights of the defence - Proposed classification of an active substance - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Precautionary principle)
(2021/C 481/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorothalonil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 114, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sipcam Oxon SpA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Case T-636/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLUMA — Late payment of the appeal fee — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Restitutio in integrum)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021481EN.01002702.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/27






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)
(Case T-636/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLUMA - Late payment of the appeal fee - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restitutio in integrum)
(2021/C 481/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 (Case R 1016/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Case T-637/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLITE — Late payment of the appeal fee — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Restitutio in integrum)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021481EN.01002801.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/28






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)
(Case T-637/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM VOLITE - Late payment of the appeal fee - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restitutio in integrum)
(2021/C 481/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 (Case R 1015/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.