do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-677/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, economic activity, energy use, indemnification, injunction, payment, public institution, supply, transfer of property








C_2022084EN.01002401.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX
(Case C-677/21)
(2022/C 84/31)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fluvius Antwerpen

Defendant: MX

Questions referred

Must Article 2(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner?
If not, must Article 14(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being a transfer, by order made by or in the name of a public authority or in pursuance of the law, of the ownership of property against payment of compensation?
Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, if Fluvius Antwerpen is entitled to compensation for unlawfully used energy, it is to be regarded as a taxable person since the unlawful usage is the result of an ‘economic activity’ of Fluvius Antwerpen, namely the exploitation of tangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis?
If Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy constitutes an economic activity, must the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC then be interpreted as meaning that Fluvius Antwerpen is a public authority and, if so, must the third paragraph of Article 13(1) then be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is the result of an activity of Fluvius Antwerpen that is not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-136/20: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — Ardex v EUIPO — Chen (ArtiX PAINTS) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, painting, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022024EN.01003602.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/36






Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — Ardex v EUIPO — Chen (ArtiX PAINTS)
(Case T-136/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 24/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ardex GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lian Chen (Seseña Nuevo, Spain) (represented by: A. González López-Menchero and V. Valero Piña, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 (Case R 2503/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ardex and Mr Chen.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ardex GmbH and Mr Lian Chen.






(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Case C-681/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, application of EU law, civil servant, equal treatment, labour law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, retirement conditions, retroactivity of a law








C_2022084EN.01002501.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau
(Case C-681/21)
(2022/C 84/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Authority bringing the appeal on a point of law: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau, represented by the Finanzprokuratur (body providing legal advice to the Austrian Government)

Interested party: B

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and the principles of legal certainty, maintenance of established rights and effectiveness of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which a previously advantaged category of civil servants is retroactively no longer entitled to pension benefits accruing on the basis of a pension adjustment, and which, in that way (retroactive removal of the previously advantaged category by now placing it on an equal footing with the previously disadvantaged category), has the effect that the previously disadvantaged category of civil servants is also not/no longer entitled to pension benefits accruing on the basis of the pension adjustment to which the latter category would have been entitled because of discrimination on grounds of age which has already been (on several occasions) judicially established — as a result of the non-application of a national provision which is contrary to EU law for the purpose of establishing equal treatment with the previously advantaged category?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.