do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-652/21: Action brought on 11 October 2021 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, vehicle parts








C_2021481EN.01004201.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/42






Action brought on 11 October 2021 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)
(Case T-652/21)
(2021/C 481/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: L. Oliva Torras (Manresa. Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mecánica del Frío, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design (Vehicle couplings) — European Union design No 002217588-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2021 in Case R 1306/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; or










—


alter the contested decision; and










—


order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs, if these have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 4(2) and (3) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case C-627/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 11 October 2021 — S.H. v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, capital goods, economic activity, tax authorities, tax law, tax relief








C_2022191EN.01000603.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 11 October 2021 — S.H. v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov
(Case C-627/21)
(2022/C 191/08)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: S.H.

Respondents: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

Question referred

Can the principle of neutrality of VAT, [recital 30] and Articles 16, 184, 186, 187, 188 and 192 of Directive 112/2006/EC (1) be interpreted as being compatible with national legislation relating to adjustment of the deductible tax in respect of capital goods (in particular Article 305(4)(a) of Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code) and point 79(14)(b) of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Rules for applying Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code), approved by Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1/2016 (Government Decision No 1/2016), laid down pursuant to Article 305(4)(a) of the Tax Code, in conjunction with Article 316(11)(e) of Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code), and with the practice of the tax administration affecting the initial deductibility of VAT paid in respect of the purchases of capital goods by requiring the taxable person to adjust downwards the deductible VAT on the ground that the tax authority annulled, of its own motion, the taxable person’s registration for VAT purposes for a certain period because of a failure to carry on economic activities in relation to the time during which the capital goods were not the subject of supplies of services or goods during the period between the annulment of the tax authority’s own motion and re-registration for the purposes of VAT?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1799 of 11 October 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, chemical weapon, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, non-proliferation of arms, removal, trade restriction




L_2021361EN.01005101.xml










12.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 361/51








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1799
of 11 October 2021
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


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

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 October 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 (1) concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons.












(2)


Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 applies until 16 October 2021. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures set out therein should be extended until 16 October 2022.












(3)


Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 8 of Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 is replaced by the following:


‘Article 8
This Decision shall apply until 16 October 2022. This Decision shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.





Done at Luxembourg, 11 October 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. PODGORŠEK
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 of 15 October 2018 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons (OJ L 259, 16.10.2018, p. 25).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10428 – CDPQ/OTPP/CMLIC) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 411/04
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Canada, United States, economic concentration, investment company, life assurance, merger control, pension scheme, teacher








C_2021411EN.01000401.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 411/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10428 – CDPQ/OTPP/CMLIC)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 411/04)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada),










—


Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada),










—


Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company (‘CMLIC’, US).




CDPQ and OTPP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of CMLIC.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CDPQ is a long-term institutional investor managing funds primarily for public and para-public pension and insurance plans headquartered in Québec City. It invests these funds in major financial markets, private equity, fixed income, infrastructure and real estate.










—


OTPP is concerned with the administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets on behalf of approximately 331,000 active and retired teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario.










—


CMLIC is a US-only provider of individual life insurance.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10428 – CDPQ/OTPP/CMLIC
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-656/21: Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, financial services, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021502EN.01003701.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/37






Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)
(Case T-656/21)
(2021/C 502/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and J. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Application for registration No 17 599 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 1954/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party (if it takes part in these proceedings) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal wrongly held that the relevant public included the general public;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to consider the two marks as respective wholes, taking account of their dominant and distinctive elements.
Case C-626/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 October 2021 — Funke Sp. zo.o.
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, information system, launching of a product, market approval, market supervision, marketing standard, product safety








C_2022037EN.01001301.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 October 2021 — Funke Sp. zo.o.
(Case C-626/21)
(2022/C 37/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Funke Sp. zo.o.

Defendant authority before the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria): Landespolizeidirektion Wien

Questions referred

Are






—


Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 596/2009, (3) in particular Article 12 and Annex II,










—


Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93, in particular Articles 20 and 22, and










—


Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/417 of 8 November 2018 laying down guidelines for the management of the European Union Rapid Information System ‘RAPEX’ established under Article 12 of Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety and its notification system (4) to be interpreted as meaning that










1.


the right of an economic operator to complete a RAPEX notification arises directly from those provisions?










2.


the European Commission is competent to decide on such a request?
or










3.


the authority of the Member State concerned is competent to decide on such a request?
(If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative)










4.


the (national) judicial protection against such a decision is sufficient where it is not afforded to everyone but only to the economic operator affected by the (obligatory) measure against the (obligatory) measure taken by the authority?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 11, p. 4.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (OJ 2008 L 218, p. 30).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny — Adaptation to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny — Part Four (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 14).

(4)  OJ 2019 L 73, p. 121.
Case C-686/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois — France) — YE and Others v Vueling Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 3(3) — Scope — Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public — Young child travelling free of charge — Article 2(f) — Definition of ‘ticket’)
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, child, indemnification, ticket, traveller








C_2022024EN.01000902.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/9






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois — France) — YE and Others v Vueling Airlines SA
(Case C-686/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 3(3) - Scope - Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public - Young child travelling free of charge - Article 2(f) - Definition of ‘ticket’)
(2022/C 24/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: YE, LP, AN, legally represented by her parents YE and LP, OL, legally represented by her parents YE and LP, VX, legally represented by his parents YE and LP, CE, legally represented by her parents YE and LP

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Operative part of the order







1.


The first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of direct or indirect availability to the public, contained in that provision, does not refer to passengers travelling free of charge.










2.


The second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who travels free of charge on account of his or her young age, but who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations booked by his or her parents, is excluded from the scope of that regulation.






(1)  Date lodged: 18 December 2020
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1800 of 11 October 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Nicaragua, democracy, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, rule of law




L_2021361EN.01005201.xml










12.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 361/52








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1800
of 11 October 2021
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


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

Whereas:







(1)


On 14 October 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 (1), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua.












(2)


Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 applies until 15 October 2021. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures set out therein should be extended until 15 October 2022.












(3)


Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 9 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 is replaced by the following:


‘Article 9
This Decision shall apply until 15 October 2022 and shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Luxembourg, 11 October 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. PODGORŠEK
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 of 14 October 2019 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua (OJ L 262, 15.10.2019, p. 58).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10454 – Omers/Goldman Sachs/Amedes) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 411/05
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, clinical trial, economic concentration, health care, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2021411EN.01000601.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 411/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10454 – Omers/Goldman Sachs/Amedes)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 411/05)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


OMERS Infrastructure European Holdings 2 B.V. (‘OMERS’, Netherlands), controlled by OMERS Administration Corporation (‘OAC’, Canada)










—


Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, United States)










—


Antin Amedes Holdco GmbH (‘Amedes’, Germany).




OMERS and Goldman Sachs acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Amedes.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for OMERS: European investment platform for infrastructure investments by OAC, a Canadian pension fund, managing a diversified global portfolio of stocks and bonds as well as real estate, infrastructure and private equity investments,










—


for Goldman Sachs: global investment banking, securities and investment management firm,










—


for Amedes: provision of clinical laboratory services in Germany, Belgium and Austria, as well as healthcare services in Germany.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10454 – Omers/Goldman Sachs/Amedes
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-628/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2021 — TB
Date: 2021-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, goods and services, intellectual property, right to information








C_2022095EN.01000901.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2021 — TB
(Case C-628/21)
(2022/C 95/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TB

Other parties to the proceedings: Castorama Polska Sp. z o.o., ‘Knor’ Sp. z o.o.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 8(1) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) be understood to refer to a measure to protect intellectual property rights only when the rightholder’s intellectual property right has been confirmed in these or other proceedings?
– if Question 1 is answered in the negative










2.


Should Article 8(1) of the directive, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient to substantiate the fact that that measure refers to an existing intellectual property right, and not to prove that circumstance, especially in a case where a request for information about the origin and distribution networks of goods or services precedes the assertion of claims for compensation on account of an infringement of intellectual property rights?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.