do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (EU) 2021/1954 of 9 November 2021 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Belgium, of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belgium, European Economic and Social Committee, appointment of members








L_2021398EN.01002701.xml










11.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 398/27








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/1954
of 9 November 2021
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Belgium, of the European Economic and Social Committee


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/853 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),


Having regard to the proposal of the Belgian Government,


After consulting the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 300(2) of the Treaty, the Economic and Social Committee is to consist of representatives of organisations of employers, of the employed, and of other parties representative of civil society, notably in socioeconomic, civic, professional and cultural areas.












(2)


On 2 October 2020, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/1392 (2), appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025.












(3)


A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the resignation of Ms Sophie GRENADE.












(4)


The Belgian Government has proposed Ms Miranda ULENS, Secrétaire générale de l’ABVV-FGTB, Federation Générale du Travail de Belgique (Secretary-General of the trade union ABVV-FGTB), as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2025,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Miranda ULENS, Secrétaire générale de l’ABVV-FGTB, Federation Générale du Travail de Belgique (Secretary-General of the trade union ABVV-FGTB), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2025.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 9 November 2021.


For the Council


The President

A. ŠIRCELJ
            





(1)  
            OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 15.

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/1392 of 2 October 2020 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025, and repealing and replacing the Council Decision appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025 adopted on 18 September 2020 (OJ L 322, 5.10.2020, p. 1).
Council Decision (EU) 2021/1955 of 9 November 2021 appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2021398EN.01002801.xml










11.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 398/28








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/1955
of 9 November 2021
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/852 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the Committee of the Regions (1),


Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.












(2)


On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(3)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate on the basis of which Mr Markus LINHART was proposed for appointment.












(4)


The Austrian Government has proposed Mr Bernhard BAIER, representative of a regional or local body who holds a local authority electoral mandate, Gemeinderat der Stadt Linz (Municipal Council of the City of Linz), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Bernhard BAIER, representative of a regional or local body who holds an electoral mandate, Gemeinderat der Stadt Linz (Municipal Council of the City of Linz), is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 9 November 2021.


For the Council


The President

A. ŠIRCELJ
            





(1)  
            OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 13.

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).
Case T-136/21: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’ — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — No individual concern — Non-regulatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, consumer protection, coronavirus disease, drug surveillance, epidemic, market approval, public health, vaccination, vaccine








C_2022024EN.01004001.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/40






Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission
(Case T-136/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’ - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 24/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 37 other applicants whose names are set out in Annex I to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 94 (final) of 6 January 2021, granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Moderna Biotech Spain SL.










3.


Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.










4.


TN, TF, TG, TH and TI, Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Moderna Biotech Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Case C-670/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2021 — BA v Finanzamt X
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Canada, basis of tax assessment, capital transfer tax, housing, property leasing, real property, tax collection, tax law








C_2022064EN.01001601.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2021 — BA v Finanzamt X
(Case C-670/21)
(2022/C 64/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BA

Defendant: Finanzamt X

Question referred

Are Articles 63(1), 64 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which, for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, provides that developed immovable property forming part of personal assets which is located in a third country (in this case: Canada) and is let for residential purposes is to be taken into account at its full value, whereas immovable property forming part of personal assets which is located within the national territory, in a Member State of the European Union or in a State of the European Economic Area and is let for residential purposes is to be taken into account at only 90 % of its value in the calculation of inheritance tax?
Case C-255/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — Harmonisation of legislation — Excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes on excise goods — Regional tax on the sale of fuel for motor vehicles — Specific purposes — Absence)
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Latium, excise duty, indirect tax, local tax, motor fuel, tax harmonisation








C_2022084EN.01002101.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/21






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl
(Case C-255/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - Harmonisation of legislation - Excise duty - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 1(2) - Other indirect taxes on excise goods - Regional tax on the sale of fuel for motor vehicles - Specific purposes - Absence)
(2022/C 84/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta

Respondent: Punto Nautica Srl

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a regional tax on the sale of petrol for motor vehicles, given that, since the proceeds of that tax are intended solely as a general contribution to the budget of the local authorities, it cannot be regarded as pursuing a ‘specific purpose’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10249 – DERICHEBOURG ENVIRONNEMENT / GROUPE ECORE HOLDING) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 453/02
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: domestic waste, economic concentration, environmental industry, merger control, metals, plastic waste, provision of services, waste recycling








C_2021453EN.01000201.xml










9.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 453/2







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10249 – DERICHEBOURG ENVIRONNEMENT / GROUPE ECORE HOLDING)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 453/02)


1.   
On 26 October 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:






—


Derichebourg Environnement (France), belonging to the Derichebourg group;










—


Groupe Ecore Holding SAS (‘Ecore Holding Group’, France).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


For Derichebourg Environment: environmental services (collection and recovery of metal waste, services to local governments such as household waste collection) and services to businesses (cleaning, temporary work, outsourced aeronautical services, energy, etc.).










—


For Ecore Holding Group: all activities in the recycling chain: collection, recovery and marketing of end-of-life materials. Its core business is metal recycling. It also recycles paper and plastic waste.






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 to it any observations they may have on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than ten days following the date on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10249 – DERICHEBOURG ENVIRONNEMENT / GROUPE ECORE HOLDING
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-676/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, export, export refund, free movement of goods, import, motor vehicle, ownership, used goods, vehicle tax








C_2022051EN.01002002.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A
(Case C-676/21)
(2022/C 51/28)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred







1.


Can the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 110 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the motor vehicle tax included in the value of a vehicle within the meaning of the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on motor vehicle tax [1482/1994]) is not refunded to the owner of the vehicle where he or she exports the vehicle for use on a permanent basis in another Member State, and is it relevant in that connection whether the vehicle was intended to be used on a permanent basis primarily in the territory of the Member State which levied the motor vehicle tax and whether it was actually used on a permanent basis primarily in that territory?










2.


If the intention of use of the vehicle and its actual use are relevant to the answer to the first question, how is such intention of use on a non-permanent basis and such actual use on a non-permanent basis to be demonstrated in so far as the duration for which a private vehicle is to be used in the Member State cannot be determined in advance?










3.


If the refusal to grant an export refund within the meaning of the Law on motor vehicle tax constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, can that restriction be justified by the objective of limiting the export of old vehicles which are often in poor condition and pollute the environment? Is the restriction of the export refund to vehicles less than ten years old to be regarded as being incompatible with EU law on the ground that motor vehicle tax is nevertheless levied on imported used vehicles irrespective of the duration for which they have been used?
Case C-669/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim (Portugal) lodged on 9 November 2021 — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, equal treatment, establishment, tax law, tax rebate








C_2022064EN.01001501.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim (Portugal) lodged on 9 November 2021 — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT
(Case C-669/21)
(2022/C 64/24)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gencoal S.A.

Defendant: Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

The question which is referred in connection with the examination of this dispute is whether Article 31(1) and (4) of Royal Decree 1624/1992 of 29 December 1992 approving the Spanish VAT Regulations and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC (1) of 12 February 2008, by providing, in the case of the former, that the period for the filing of an application for a VAT refund by traders or professional practitioners not established in the territory of application of the tax but established within the Community [European Union] starts to run [on the day] following the last day of each calendar quarter or each calendar year and ends on 30 September of the year following the calendar year in which the tax concerned was paid, and, in the case of the latter, that the refund application must be submitted to the Member State of establishment not later than 30 September of the calendar year following the refund period, infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality (with consequences for neutrality in the context of competition and the principle of equal treatment from the point of view of the prohibition of discrimination) which flows from the common system of VAT as derived from recitals 4, 5 and 7 and Articles 167, 170, 171 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC (3) of 12 February 2008, and the fundamental right enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(3)  Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the place of supply of services (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 11).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10385 – GENSTAR CAPITAL / TA ASSOCIATES / 20-20 / COMPUSOFT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 54/01
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2022054EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10385 – GENSTAR CAPITAL / TA ASSOCIATES / 20-20 / COMPUSOFT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 54/01)
On 9 November 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 32021M10385. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.