do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-281/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Ferimet SL v Administracíon General del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right of deduction — Article 199 — Reverse charge procedure — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Material conditions governing the right to deduct — Supplier’s status as taxable person — Burden of proof — Fraud — Abusive practice — Invoice referring to a fictitious supplier)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, invoicing, proof, supplier, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2022011EN.01000901.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Ferimet SL v Administracíon General del Estado
(Case C-281/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Article 199 - Reverse charge procedure - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Material conditions governing the right to deduct - Supplier’s status as taxable person - Burden of proof - Fraud - Abusive practice - Invoice referring to a fictitious supplier)
(2022/C 11/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferimet SL

Defendant: Administracíon General del Estado

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person must be refused the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to the acquisition of goods supplied to that taxable person where he or she has knowingly mentioned a fictitious supplier on the invoice which that taxable person him- or herself has issued in respect of that transaction under the reverse charge procedure, if, taking into account the factual circumstances and the evidence provided by that taxable person, the information necessary to verify that the true supplier had the status of taxable person is lacking, or if it is established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person has committed VAT fraud or knew or ought to have known that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right of deduction was connected with such a fraud.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Case C-106/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Common agricultural policy — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Conformity clearance procedure — Plea raised for the first time during the oral proceedings at first instance — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 2(2) — Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Article 4(1)(h) — Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ — Distortion of evidence — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 — Article 12(4) — One-off correction — Conditions — Burden of proof)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, grassland, proof, single payment scheme








C_2022011EN.01000701.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/7






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
(Case C-106/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common agricultural policy - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Conformity clearance procedure - Plea raised for the first time during the oral proceedings at first instance - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 2(2) - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Article 4(1)(h) - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Distortion of evidence - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Article 12(4) - One-off correction - Conditions - Burden of proof)
(2022/C 11/08)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Case C-388/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Provision of food information to consumers — Article 9(1)(l) — Nutrition declaration — Second subparagraph of Article 31(3) — Calculation of the energy value and of the amounts of nutrients — Possibility of providing that information for the food after preparation — Conditions — Second subparagraph of Article 33(2) — Expression on a per portion basis or per consumption unit)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, labelling, prepared foodstuff








C_2022011EN.01001101.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/11






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG
(Case C-388/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Article 9(1)(l) - Nutrition declaration - Second subparagraph of Article 31(3) - Calculation of the energy value and of the amounts of nutrients - Possibility of providing that information for the food after preparation - Conditions - Second subparagraph of Article 33(2) - Expression on a per portion basis or per consumption unit)
(2022/C 11/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Respondent: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 must be interpreted as applying only to foods for which preparation is necessary and the method of preparation is predetermined.


(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement 2021/C 457/03
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, university, vocational training








C_2021457EN.01000501.xml










11.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/5






No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2021/C 457/03)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:






Date of adoption of the decision


7 July 2021




Case No


85345




Decision No


172/21/COL




EFTA State


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


University summer courses




Form of aid


No aid




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-398/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — ELVOSPOL v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Reduction of the taxable amount for VAT purposes — Total or partial non-payment of the price on account of the debtor’s insolvency — Conditions imposed by national legislation for the adjustment of output VAT — Condition that the claim not paid in whole or in part must not have arisen during the six-month period preceding the declaration of insolvency of the debtor company — Non-compliance)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, claim, financial solvency, tax relief








C_2022011EN.01001201.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/12






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — ELVOSPOL v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-398/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the taxable amount for VAT purposes - Total or partial non-payment of the price on account of the debtor’s insolvency - Conditions imposed by national legislation for the adjustment of output VAT - Condition that the claim not paid in whole or in part must not have arisen during the six-month period preceding the declaration of insolvency of the debtor company - Non-compliance)
(2022/C 11/15)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ELVOSPOL

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which makes adjustment of the amount of value added tax subject to the condition that the partially or totally unpaid claim must not have arisen during the six-month period preceding the declaration of insolvency of the debtor company, where it is not ruled out under that condition that such a claim may ultimately be definitively irrecoverable.


(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Case T-689/19: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — ZU v EEAS (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Officials — Commission staff serving in the EEAS — Request for reimbursement of mission expenses — Request for assistance — Rejection — Competence of the author of the act — Delegation of powers — Pre-litigation procedure — Designation of the defendant — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of sound financial management — Misuse of powers — Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, allowances and expenses, indemnification, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022024EN.01003601.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/36






Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — ZU v EEAS
(Case T-689/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Officials - Commission staff serving in the EEAS - Request for reimbursement of mission expenses - Request for assistance - Rejection - Competence of the author of the act - Delegation of powers - Pre-litigation procedure - Designation of the defendant - Partial inadmissibility - Principle of sound financial management - Misuse of powers - Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 24/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 30 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests for the reimbursement of mission costs and for the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint directed against the decision of the EEAS referred to above and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by him.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


ZU shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 457/06
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, bus, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, transport company, waterway transport








C_2021457EN.01000801.xml










11.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/8






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 457/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


6.7.2021




Case No


87067




Decision No


200/21/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 Compensation scheme for operators of year-round, commercial, long-distance scheduled bus or passenger boat services




Legal basis


The regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for operators of commercial bus and passenger boat routes with a loss in turnover caused by the COVID-19 outbreak




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Compensation for loss incurred by Covid-19 outbreak and the infection control measures implemented by the Norwegian authorities, to ensure the continuity of year-round, commercial, long-distance bus and passenger boat services that do not receive compensation from local or other public authorities for public services obligation




Form of aid


Direct grants




Budget


NOK 300 million




Intensity


80 %




Duration


6.7.2021 – 31.12.2021




Economic sectors


Land and sea transport




Name and address of the granting authority


The Norwegian Railway Directorate
Jernbanedirektoratet
Postboks 16 Sentrum
N-0101 Oslo
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-680/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, professional sport, restriction on competition, sporting event, sports body








C_2022073EN.01001002.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL
(Case C-680/21)
(2022/C 73/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club

Defendant: Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the plan relating to ‘HGPs’ adopted on 2 February 2005 by UEFA’s Executive Committee, approved by UEFA’s 52 member associations at the Tallinn Congress on 21 April 2005 and implemented by means of regulations adopted both by UEFA and by its member federations?










2.


Are Articles 45 and 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the application of the rules on the inclusion on the match sheet and the fielding of locally trained players, as formalised by Articles P335.11 and P.1422 of the URBSFA’s federal regulation and reproduced in Articles B4.1[12] of Title 4 and B6.109 of Title 6 of the new URBSFA regulation?
Case C-852/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/41/EU — European Investigation Order in criminal matters — Article 14 — Legal remedies — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State — Decision ordering searches, seizures and a hearing of a witness by videoconference)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, evidence, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial investigation, right to justice, search, seizure of goods








C_2022011EN.01000301.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/3






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
(Case C-852/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Article 14 - Legal remedies - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State - Decision ordering searches, seizures and a hearing of a witness by videoconference)
(2022/C 11/03)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Criminal proceedings against

Ivan Gavanozov

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, read in conjunction with Article 24(7) of that directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which has issued a European Investigation Order that does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order, the purpose of which is the carrying out of searches and seizures as well as the hearing of a witness by videoconference.










2.


Article 6 of Directive 2014/41, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(3) [of the Treaty on European Union], must be interpreted as precluding the issuing, by the competent authority of a Member State, of a European Investigation Order, the purpose of which is the carrying out of searches and seizures as well as the hearing of a witness by videoconference, where the legislation of that Member State does not provide any legal remedy against the issuing of such a European Investigation Order.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-315/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Veneto v Plan Eco Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Shipments of waste — Article 3(5) and Article 11(1)(i) — Directive 2008/98/EC — Waste management — Article 16 — Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity — Decision 2000/532/EC — European Waste Catalogue (EWC) — Mixed municipal waste subject to mechanical treatment which does not alter its nature)
Date: 2021-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: classification, domestic waste, energy production, environmental protection, export of waste, hazardous waste, public health, waste management








C_2022011EN.01000902.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/9






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Veneto v Plan Eco Srl
(Case C-315/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipments of waste - Article 3(5) and Article 11(1)(i) - Directive 2008/98/EC - Waste management - Article 16 - Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity - Decision 2000/532/EC - European Waste Catalogue (EWC) - Mixed municipal waste subject to mechanical treatment which does not alter its nature)
(2022/C 11/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Regione Veneto

Respondent: Plan Eco Srl

intervening parties: Futura Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(5) and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste must be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, the competent authority of dispatch may, on the basis, inter alia, of the ground set out in Article 11(1)(i) of that regulation, object to a shipment of mixed municipal waste which, following mechanical treatment for the purpose of its energy recovery which has not however substantially altered its original properties, has been classified under code 19 12 12 of the list of wastes laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, as amended by Commission Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 2014.


(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.