do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-95/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Varchev Finans’ EOOD v Komisia za finansov nadzor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2014/65/EU — Markets in financial instruments — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 — Investment firms — Article 56 — Assessment of appropriateness and related record-keeping obligations — Article 72 — Retention of records — Methods of retention — Information concerning client categorisation — Information on costs and associated charges relating to investment services)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, financial instrument, financial legislation, information storage, investment company, management audit, provision of services, trade information








C_2022002EN.01000601.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/6






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Varchev Finans’ EOOD v Komisia za finansov nadzor
(Case C-95/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/65/EU - Markets in financial instruments - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 - Investment firms - Article 56 - Assessment of appropriateness and related record-keeping obligations - Article 72 - Retention of records - Methods of retention - Information concerning client categorisation - Information on costs and associated charges relating to investment services)
(2022/C 2/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Varchev Finans’ EOOD

Defendant: Komisia za finansov nadzor

Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56(2) and Article 72(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, read in conjunction with Annex I to that delegated regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that investment firms are not required to record the suitability and appropriateness assessments undertaken for each client with respect to investment products and services and the information provided to each client on the costs and charges relating to the investment services in separate single registers, in the form, in particular, of a database, and the manner in which those records are kept may be freely chosen, provided, however, that it meets all of the requirements laid down in Article 72(1) of that delegated regulation.


(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Case C-357/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection for animal species — Annex IV(a) — European hamster (Cricetus cricetus) — Resting places and breeding sites — Deterioration or destruction)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, protected species, protection of animals








C_2022002EN.01001001.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien
(Case C-357/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection for animal species - Annex IV(a) - European hamster (Cricetus cricetus) - Resting places and breeding sites - Deterioration or destruction)
(2022/C 2/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IE

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘breeding site’, referred to in that provision, also includes the surroundings of that site where those surroundings are necessary for the protected animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive, such as the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), to reproduce successfully;










2.


Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the breeding sites of a protected animal species must enjoy protection for as long as is necessary in order for that animal species successfully to reproduce, as a result of which that protection also extends to breeding sites which are no longer occupied where there is a sufficiently high probability that that animal species will return to those sites;










3.


Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts of ‘deterioration’ and ‘destruction’, referred to in that provision, must be interpreted as meaning, respectively, the progressive reduction of the ecological functionality of a breeding site or resting place of a protected animal species and the total loss of that functionality, irrespective of whether or not such harm is intentional.






(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1913 of 28 October 2021 approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication ‘Cotnari’ (PDO)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Botosani, Iasi, Romania, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, sparkling wine, white wine








L_2021389EN.01000801.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 389/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1913
of 28 October 2021
         
approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication ‘Cotnari’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined the application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Cotnari’, forwarded by Romania in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(2)


The Commission has published the application for the approval of the amendments to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Cotnari’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 October 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 284, 16.7.2021, p. 20.
Case C-319/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v ZV, AX, ‘Meditsinski tsentar po dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM’ ООD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/42/EU — Scope — National legislation providing for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, offence, ownership, seizure of goods








C_2022002EN.01000201.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/2






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v ZV, AX, ‘Meditsinski tsentar po dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM’ ООD
(Case C-319/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/42/EU - Scope - National legislation providing for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction)
(2022/C 2/02)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo

Defendants: ZV, AX, ‘Meditsinski tsentar po dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM’ ООD

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union, must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which provides that confiscation of illegally obtained assets is to be ordered by a national court in the context of or following proceedings which do not relate to a finding of one or more criminal offences.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Joined Cases C-221/20 and C-223/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought byA Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 92/83/EEC — Excise duty — Beer — Article 4(2) — Possibility to apply reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries — Treatment as a single independent small brewery or as two or more small breweries — Obligation to transpose)
Date: 2021-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: beer, beverage industry, excise duty, small business, tax relief








C_2022002EN.01000802.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/8






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought byA Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20)
(Joined Cases C-221/20 and C-223/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/83/EEC - Excise duty - Beer - Article 4(2) - Possibility to apply reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries - Treatment as a single independent small brewery or as two or more small breweries - Obligation to transpose)
(2022/C 2/11)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20)

Intervening parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies the possibility, provided for in Article 4(1) thereof, of applying reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries is not, however, obliged to treat as a single independent small brewery two or more small cooperating breweries whose combined annual production does not exceed 200 000 hectolitres.


(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.