do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-25/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani — Slovenia) — Proceedings brought by NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 28 — Article 32(2) — Time limit for the lodging of claims in insolvency proceedings — Lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings ongoing in a Member State, of claims by the liquidator in the main proceedings pending in another Member State — Compulsory time limit laid down by the law of the State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened)
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, claim, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2022051EN.01000601.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/6






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani — Slovenia) — Proceedings brought by NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH
(Case C-25/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 28 - Article 32(2) - Time limit for the lodging of claims in insolvency proceedings - Lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings ongoing in a Member State, of claims by the liquidator in the main proceedings pending in another Member State - Compulsory time limit laid down by the law of the State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened)
(2022/C 51/07)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Ljubljani

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH

Intervening parties: Alpine BAU GmbH, Salzburg — Celje Branch, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 103, 30.9.2020.
Case C-713/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2021 — A v Finanzamt X
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, animal show, claim, equidae, provision of services, sporting event








C_2022119EN.01001802.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2021 — A v Finanzamt X
(Case C-713/21)
(2022/C 119/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: Finanzamt X

Questions referred

In relation to the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) as interpreted in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 November 2016, Baštová: (2)

Does the owner of a competition horse training stable provide the horse owner with a single supply, consisting in the stabling and training of horses and the participation of horses in competitions, for consideration even where the horse owner remunerates that supply by assigning half of the claim to prize money to which he or she is entitled in the event of successful participation in a competition?


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

(2)  C 432/15 (EU:C:2016:855).
Case C-714/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Françoise Grossetête (T-722/19) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-720/19 to T-725/19, Ashworth and Others v Parliament
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Member of the European Parliament, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), supplementary pension








C_2022037EN.01002201.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/22






Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Françoise Grossetête (T-722/19) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-720/19 to T-725/19, Ashworth and Others v Parliament
(Case C-714/21 P)
(2022/C 37/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Françoise Grossetête (represented by: J. M. Martínez Gimeno, abogado, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, and F. Doumont, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;










—


rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision contained in the notice fixing the additional pension rights owed to the appellant in so far as it introduces a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of her pension, payable directly into the additional voluntary pension fund;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-722/19.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The grounds of appeal allege: (i) the Bureau’s lack of competence to take the decision of the Bureau of 2018, inter alia in so far as it lays down substantive conditions for rights conferring prospective entitlement before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (ii) infringement of the first sentence of Article 27(2) of the Staff Regulations by reason of non-observance of rights conferring prospective entitlement prior to the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (iii) infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality; and (iv) infringement of the principle of legal certainty (lack of transitional measures) and the principle of legitimate expectations.
Case C-334/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Amper Metal Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2 — Transaction subject to VAT — Concept — Article 168(a) and Article 176 — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal — Advertising services categorised as excessively expensive and not beneficial by the tax authority — Lack of turnover generated by the taxable person)
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, advertising, tax relief, turnover








C_2022051EN.01001101.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/11






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Amper Metal Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-334/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2 - Transaction subject to VAT - Concept - Article 168(a) and Article 176 - Right to deduct input VAT - Refusal - Advertising services categorised as excessively expensive and not beneficial by the tax authority - Lack of turnover generated by the taxable person)
(2022/C 51/13)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Veszprémi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Amper Metal Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may deduct input value added tax (VAT) paid for advertising services where such a supply of services constitutes a transaction subject to VAT within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2006/112, and has a direct and immediate link with one or more taxable output transactions or with the taxable person’s economic activity as a whole, by way of overheads, without it being necessary to take into account the fact that the price charged for such services is excessive in relation to a reference value defined by the national tax authorities or that those services have not given rise to an increase in the taxable person’s turnover.


(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Case C-716/21 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Graham R. Watson (T-245/20) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-240/20 to T-245/20, Arnaoutakis and Others v Parliament
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), supplementary pension








C_2022037EN.01002301.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/23






Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Graham R. Watson (T-245/20) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-240/20 to T-245/20, Arnaoutakis and Others v Parliament
(Case C-716/21 P)
(2022/C 37/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Graham R. Watson (represented by: J. M. Martínez Gimeno, abogado, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, and F. Doumont, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;










—


rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision in so far as it rejects the appellant’s application to be granted a voluntary additional pension on the ground that he has not reached the required age of 65;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-245/20.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The grounds of appeal allege: (i) the Bureau’s lack of competence to take the decision of the Bureau of 2018, inter alia in so far as it lays down substantive conditions for rights conferring prospective entitlement before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (ii) infringement of the first sentence of Article 27(2) of the Staff Regulations by reason of non-observance of rights conferring prospective entitlement prior to the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (iii) infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality; and (iv) infringement of the principle of legal certainty (lack of transitional measures) and the principle of legitimate expectations.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10320 – APERAM / ELG HANIEL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 100/01
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: alloy, economic concentration, merger control, raw material, recycling technology, special steels, steel, titanium








C_2022100EN.01000101.xml










1.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10320 – APERAM / ELG HANIEL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 100/01)
On 25 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 32021M10320. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-233/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Article 7(1) — Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship — Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee)
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, paid leave, termination of employment, working conditions








C_2022051EN.01000801.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/8






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation
(Case C-233/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship - Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee)
(2022/C 51/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WD

Defendant: job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause;










2.


It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.