do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-370/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Pro Rauchfrei eV v JS e.K. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Directive 2014/40/EU — Labelling and packaging — Article 8(8) — Health warnings which must appear on each unit packet of a tobacco product and any outside packaging — Automatic vending machine for cigarette packets — Health warnings not visible from the outside — Representation of unit packets — Concept of ‘images’ of unit packets and any outside packaging targeting consumers in the European Union)
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: automatic vending machine, consumer information, health risk, labelling, packaging product, product designation, smoking, tobacco industry








C_2022073EN.01000401.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Pro Rauchfrei eV v JS e.K.
(Case C-370/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Directive 2014/40/EU - Labelling and packaging - Article 8(8) - Health warnings which must appear on each unit packet of a tobacco product and any outside packaging - Automatic vending machine for cigarette packets - Health warnings not visible from the outside - Representation of unit packets - Concept of ‘images’ of unit packets and any outside packaging targeting consumers in the European Union)
(2022/C 73/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Pro Rauchfrei eV

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: JS e.K.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 8(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC must be interpreted as meaning that images which are not faithful depictions of unit packets of cigarettes but which consumers associate with such unit packets on account of their design in terms of outline, proportions, colour and brand logo constitute ‘images of unit packets’ within the meaning of that provision.










2.


Article 8(8) of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as meaning that an image of a packet of cigarettes which is covered by that provision but which does not carry the health warnings provided for in Chapter II of Title II of that directive is not compliant with that provision, even if the consumer has the opportunity to see those warnings on the packet of cigarettes corresponding to such an image before purchasing it.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Case T-770/21: Action brought on 9 December 2021 — OC v EEAS
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence








C_2022051EN.01004001.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/40






Action brought on 9 December 2021 — OC v EEAS
(Case T-770/21)
(2022/C 51/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




consequently:






—


annul the decision of 10 September 2020, notified on 11 February 2021, by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s request for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 31 August 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 May 2021 against the decision of 10 September 2021;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of procedure and of the competence rules concerning distribution of powers. The applicant submits in that regard that the decision to initiate an administrative investigation should have been taken by the Secretary-General of EEAS.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment committed by EEAS in the light of its definition of psychological harassment and of the breach of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.
Council Decision (EU) 2021/2231 of 9 December 2021 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community as regards the adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Western Balkans, agreement (EU), budget, common transport policy, inland waterway transport, joint body (EU), land transport, maritime transport, trans-European network, transport network








L_2021448EN.01006401.xml










15.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 448/64








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/2231
of 9 December 2021
         
on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community as regards the adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 and Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The Treaty establishing the Transport Community (‘TCT’) was concluded by the Union by means of Council Decision (EU) 2019/392 (1) and entered into force on 1 May 2019.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 35 TCT, the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community (‘the Steering Committee’) is to adopt the budget of the Transport Community every year. Article 35 TCT also empowers the Steering Committee to adopt decisions specifying the procedure for the implementation of the budget.












(3)


The Steering Committee is to adopt a decision on the budget of the Transport Community for 2022 during its meeting in December 2021.












(4)


The proposed budget of the Transport Community for 2022 is needed for the proper functioning of the bodies of the Transport Community. It covers the costs for human resources, travel, IT equipment and software, as well as operational expenditure such as studies, technical assistance and the organisation of conferences and meetings.












(5)


It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the Steering Committee, as such a decision is necessary for the functionning of the Permanent Secretariat of the Transport Community, and will be binding upon the Union,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community as regards the budget of the Transport Community for the year 2022 shall be based on the draft decision of the Regional Steering Committee (2).


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




Done at Brussels, 9 December 2021.


For the Council


The President

A. HOJS
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/392 of 4 March 2019 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Treaty establishing the Transport Community (OJ L 71, 13.3.2019, p. 1).

(2)  See document ST 14006/21 at http://register.consilium.europa.eu
Case C-217/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel — Netherlands) — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Article 7(1) — Right to paid annual leave — Level of remuneration — Reduced remuneration due to incapacity for work)
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, incapacity for work, paid leave, remuneration of work








C_2022073EN.01000301.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel — Netherlands) — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-217/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to paid annual leave - Level of remuneration - Reduced remuneration due to incapacity for work)
(2022/C 73/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Overijssel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XXXX

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) 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 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions and practices under which, where a worker who is incapacitated for work due to illness exercises his or her right to paid annual leave, the reduction, following the incapacity for work, of the amount of remuneration that he or she received during the period of work preceding that during which annual leave is requested, is taken into account to determine the amount of remuneration that will be paid to him or her in respect of his or her paid annual leave.


(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case T-766/21: Action brought on 9 December 2021 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machine tool, metals, metalworking, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022064EN.01003001.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/30






Action brought on 9 December 2021 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)
(Case T-766/21)
(2022/C 64/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sapa Building Systems SpA (Naviglio, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark alpina — Application for registration No 15 123 342

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 2198/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order Sapa Building Systems SpA to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-773/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by AV, AW against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-43/20, AV and AW v Parliament
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: assistant, demotion, disciplinary proceedings, evidence, interpretation of the law, rights of the defence








C_2022138EN.01001201.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/12






Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by AV, AW against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-43/20, AV and AW v Parliament
(Case C-773/21 P)
(2022/C 138/11)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: AV, AW (represented by: J. Martins, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the appeal admissible and well founded;










—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims of the appellants put forward at first instance, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative










—


refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all the costs at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments







—


Infringement of the rights of the defence and failure to comply with the duty to state reasons;










—


Inaccurate assessments of the facts and distortion of a number of items of evidence which led the General Court to err in law in the assessment of the facts;










—


Error of law in the interpretation of the applicable legislation.
Public holidays in 2022: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions 2021/C 495/02
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EEA joint institution, EFTA countries, public holiday








C_2021495EN.01000201.xml










9.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 495/2






Public holidays in 2022: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions
(2021/C 495/02)










 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway


EFTA Surveillance Authority


EFTA Court




Monday 3 January


 


 


 


X


X




Thursday 6 January


 


X


 


 


 




Wednesday 2 February


 


X


 


 


 




Monday 28 February


 


 


 


 


X




Tuesday 1 March


 


X


 


 


 




Thursday 14 April


X


 


X


X


X




Friday 15 April


X


X


X


X


X




Monday 18 April


X


X


X


X


X




Thursday 21 April


X


 


 


 


 




Monday 9 May


 


 


 


 


X




Monday 17 May


 


 


X


 


 




Thursday 26 May


X


X


X


X


X




Friday 27 May


 


 


 


X


X




Monday 6 June


X


X


X


X


X




Thursday 16 June


 


X


 


 


 




Friday 17 June


X


 


 


 


 




Thursday 23 June


 


 


 


 


X




Monday 1 August


X


 


 


 


 




Monday 15 August


 


X


 


 


X




Monday 29 August


 


 


 


 


X




Thursday 8 September


 


X


 


 


 




Tuesday 1 November


 


X


 


X


X




Wednesday 2 November


 


 


 


 


X




Thursday 8 December


 


X


 


 


 




Wednesday 21 December


 


 


 


X


 




Thursday 22 December


 


 


 


X


 




Friday 23 December


 


 


 


X


 




Monday 26 December


X


X


X


X


X




Tuesday 27 December


 


 


 


X


X




Wednesday 28 December


 


 


 


X


X




Thursday 29 December


 


 


 


X


X




Friday 30 December


 


 


 


X


X










**


Public holidays falling on Saturdays and Sundays are not listed.
Council Regulation (EU) 2021/2176 of 9 December 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms trade, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2021443EN.01000101.xml










10.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 443/1








            COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2021/2176
of 9 December 2021
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1),


Having regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (2) gives effect to Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP (3) and provides for certain measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including a freezing of their assets.












(2)


Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 amends the title of Decision 2010/788/CFSP.












(3)


Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The title of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 is replaced by the following:


                  ‘
                  Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
                  ’.



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 9 December 2021.


For the Council


The President

A. HOJS
            





(1)  See page 75 of this Official Journal.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 193, 23.7.2005, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ L 336, 21.12.2010, p. 30).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10503 – SK CAPITAL PARTNERS / SEQENS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 49/06
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, special chemicals








C_2022049EN.01000601.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10503 – SK CAPITAL PARTNERS / SEQENS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 49/06)
On 9 December 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 32021M10503. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10528 – ADVENT / EURAZEO / PROTEL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 509/01
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control, software








C_2021509EN.01000101.xml










17.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 509/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10528 – ADVENT / EURAZEO / PROTEL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 509/01)
On 9 December 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 32021M10528. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-154/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Kemwater ProChemie s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right to deduct input tax — Material conditions governing the right of deduction — Supplier’s status as taxable person — Burden of proof — Refusal of the right of deduction where the true supplier has not been identified — Conditions)
Date: 2021-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, proof, supplier, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2022073EN.01000201.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/2






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Kemwater ProChemie s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-154/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right to deduct input tax - Material conditions governing the right of deduction - Supplier’s status as taxable person - Burden of proof - Refusal of the right of deduction where the true supplier has not been identified - Conditions)
(2022/C 73/02)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kemwater ProChemie s. r. o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) must be refused, without the tax authorities having to prove that the taxable person committed VAT fraud or that he or she knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on to establish the right of deduction was connected with such fraud, where, the true supplier of the goods or services concerned not having been identified, that taxable person fails to adduce proof that that supplier had the status of taxable person, provided that, taking into account the factual circumstances and the evidence produced by that taxable person, the information needed to verify that the true supplier had that status is lacking.


(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.