do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-23/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 10 January 2022 — Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2022-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, agro-industry, control of State aid, fish product, food processing, regional aid, sea fish, tax relief








C_2022165EN.01002701.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 10 January 2022 — Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-23/22)
(2022/C 165/35)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

According to the correct interpretation of the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020, in conjunction with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 16 June 2014, (1) in particular Article 1 and Article 2(11) thereof, Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, (2) and Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is it possible to conclude that, under Articles 2(2) and 22(1) of the Código Fiscal do Investimento (Tax Code on Investment), approved by Decreto-Lei n.o 162/2014 (Decree-Law No 162/2014) of 31 October 2014, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Portaria n.o 282/2014 (Ministerial Order No 282/2014) of 30 December 2014, the processing of fishery and aquaculture products relating to ‘salted cod’, ‘frozen cod’ and ‘desalted cod’ in Economic Activity Code 10204Rev3 does not constitute the processing of agricultural products for the purposes of granting the relevant tax advantages?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10527 – INSIGHT / VECTOR CAPITAL / IRIS HOLDINGS JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 9/01
Date: 2022-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: data processing, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2022009EN.01000101.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10527 – INSIGHT / VECTOR CAPITAL / IRIS HOLDINGS JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 9/01)
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 32021M10527. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting on 10 January 2022 concerning a Decision in case M.9343 HHIH/DSME Meeting by Audio Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’ Rapporteur: Sweden (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 93/05
Date: 2022-01-10
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, shipbuilding, tanker








C_2023093EN.01003901.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/39






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting on 10 January 2022 concerning a Decision in case M.9343 HHIH/DSME Meeting by Audio Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’
Rapporteur: Sweden
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 93/05)

Operation









1.


The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission that the Transaction constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.





Union Dimension









2.


The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission that the Transaction has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.





Product Markets









3.


The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market for the construction of Large LNG carriers (‘LLNGCs’).





Geographic markets









4.


The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission’s definition of the relevant market for the construction of LLNGCs as worldwide.





Competitive Assessment









5.


The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission’s assessment that the Transaction would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition on the worldwide market for the construction of LLNGCs by the creation of a dominant position.





Compatibility with the Internal Market









6.


The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission that the Transaction should therefore be declared incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(3) and 8(3) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
Case T-16/22: Action brought on 10 January 2022 — NV v EIB
Date: 2022-01-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, absenteeism, administrative procedure, indemnification, interest, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU), working time








C_2022095EN.01004002.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/40






Action brought on 10 January 2022 — NV v EIB
(Case T-16/22)
(2022/C 95/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: NV (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded;
consequently,










—


annul the decision of 5 February 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences during the following periods: from 29 May 2020 until 15 September 2020, from 30 June 2020 until 30 September 2020, from 7 September 2020 until 7 November 2020, and from 3 November 2020 until 8 January 2021;










—


where necessary, annul the decision of 1 October 2021 dismissing the administrative action submitted on 1 April 2021 against the decision of 5 February 2021;










—


annul the decision of 20 April 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences from 8 January 2021 until 8 April 2021;










—


annul the decision of 3 May 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences from 8 April 2021 until 8 June 2021;










—


where necessary, annul the decision of 27 October 2021 dismissing the administrative action submitted on 18 June 2021 against the decisions of 20 April 2021 and of 3 May 2021;










—


order EIB to pay the remuneration relating to the periods from 29 May 2020 until 8 January 2021, from 8 January 2021 until 8 April 2021, and from 8 April 2021 until 8 June 2021, together with default interest, the rate of which being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;










—


order the EIB to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the EIB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of Annex X to the administrative provisions, infringement of Article 34 of the Charter whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of the administrative provisions, manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and misuse of rights.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of diligence and care, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 33c of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of the administrative provisions.
Case T-14/22: Action brought on 10 January 2022 — uwe JetStream GmbH/EUIPO (JET STREAM)
Date: 2022-01-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, pump, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2022119EN.01005001.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/50






Action brought on 10 January 2022 — uwe JetStream GmbH/EUIPO (JET STREAM)
(Case T-14/22)
(2022/C 119/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: uwe JetStream GmbH (Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘JET STREAM’ — Application for registration No 20 809 111

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 1092/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision, as well as the first instance EUIPO decision of 15 December 2020 and of 29 April 2021;










—


allow the extension of the protection of international registration No 0809111 for the purposes of its registration in the European Union;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.