do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-225/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 — Area-related aid scheme — Single area payment — Eligibility criteria — Concession agreement for agricultural land — Change of use of that land without the agreement of the grantor — Agricultural use of areas intended for aquaculture use — Difference between the area declared and the area determined — Over-declaration — Administrative penalties)
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, administrative sanction, agricultural land, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, single payment scheme








C_2022084EN.01001102.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/11






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea
(Case C-225/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 - Area-related aid scheme - Single area payment - Eligibility criteria - Concession agreement for agricultural land - Change of use of that land without the agreement of the grantor - Agricultural use of areas intended for aquaculture use - Difference between the area declared and the area determined - Over-declaration - Administrative penalties)
(2022/C 84/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Euro Delta Danube SRL

Respondent: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(23) and Article 19(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014, supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1393 of 4 May 2016 must be interpreted as not providing for, in the context of the single area payment scheme, the imposition of administrative penalties for over-declaration on an applicant for agricultural aid, on the ground that he or she uses for agricultural purposes areas which have been granted to him or her for aquaculture use, without the agreement of the grantor to such a change of use of those areas, since that applicant enjoys a degree of autonomy with regard to that area sufficient for the carrying-out of his or her agricultural activity.


(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Special report No 27/2021 EU support to tourism: need for a fresh strategic orientation and a better funding approach 2021/C 507/06
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, EU strategy, European Regional Development Fund, coronavirus disease, distribution of EU funding, epidemic, sustainable development, tourism








C_2021507EN.01001101.xml










16.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 507/11






Special report No 27/2021
EU support to tourism: need for a fresh strategic orientation and a better funding approach
(2021/C 507/06)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 27/2021 ‘EU support to tourism: need for a fresh strategic orientation and a better funding approach’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Closed-ended mutual investment funds — Open-ended mutual investment funds — Investments in real estate — Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees — Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds — Difference in treatment — Comparability of situations — Objective criteria of differentiation)
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, free movement of capital, investment company, land register, mortgage, real estate business, real estate market, tax relief








C_2022084EN.01000401.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/4






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Closed-ended mutual investment funds - Open-ended mutual investment funds - Investments in real estate - Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees - Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds - Difference in treatment - Comparability of situations - Objective criteria of differentiation)
(2022/C 84/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC (now, after amendment, Article 63 TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which restricts the benefit of the reduction in mortgage registration tax and in land registry fees solely to closed-ended real estate funds, to the exclusion of open-ended real estate funds, provided that those two categories of fund are in objectively comparable situations, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the objective of limiting systemic risks on the real estate market.


(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case C-575/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Atmospheric pollution — System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2003/87/EC — Installations for the combustion of fuels — Annex I — Total rated thermal input — Rules for calculation — Aggregation rule)
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, combustion gases, reduction of gas emissions








C_2022084EN.01001902.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/19






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter
(Case C-575/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Atmospheric pollution - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Installations for the combustion of fuels - Annex I - Total rated thermal input - Rules for calculation - Aggregation rule)
(2022/C 84/23)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft.

Defendant: Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 3 of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that the total rated thermal input of an installation must be calculated by adding together the maximum rated thermal input of the technical units which are part of that installation, except where the restrictions placed by the operator on that maximum rated thermal input are permanent, and the existence of those restrictions and their permanent nature are in fact verifiable by the national authority competent for the allocation of allowances.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Case C-791/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2021 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-745/18, Covestro Deutschland AG v European Commission
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electricity supply, reimbursement of aid








C_2022073EN.01002201.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/22






Appeal brought on 16 December 2021 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-745/18, Covestro Deutschland AG v European Commission
(Case C-791/21 P)
(2022/C 73/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Covestro Deutschland AG, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case T-745/18, in so far as it dismissed the action as unfounded;










—


annul the Commission’s Decision of 28 May 2018 on State aid SA.34045 (2013/c) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV C(2018) 3166 final, for the years 2012 and 2013 in accordance with Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, in which it alleges an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. According to the appellant, the General Court erred in law in assuming that the scheme in Paragraph 19(2) of the German Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (StromNEV) (Regulation on electricity network charges) constitutes State aid as provided for in Article 107(1) TFEU.
First, the General Court erred in law in finding, in the context of the assessment of the State nature of the network charges, that the existence of a mandatory charge on consumers or end users and the State control over the funds or over the administrators of those funds constituted two factors that were ‘part of an alternative’.
Secondly, the General Court erred in law in finding, in the context of the assessment whether there is a ‘mandatory charge on consumers or end users’, that the relationship between an electricity supplier and electricity end users was irrelevant. In addition, the General Court erred in law by taking into account the obligation to levy and not the legal obligation to pay network charges.
Thirdly, the General Court erred in law in holding, in the context of the assessment whether State control or State power to dispose of funds exists, that the exclusive use of the network charges collected did not rule out that the State could dispose of those funds.