do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-180/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 March 2022 — Finanzamt Hamm v Harry Mensing
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, art trade, basis of tax assessment, intra-EU trade, tax exemption, trading margin, work of art








C_2022222EN.01001601.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 March 2022 — Finanzamt Hamm v Harry Mensing
(Case C-180/22)
(2022/C 222/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Hamm

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Harry Mensing

Questions referred







1.


In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person relies, on the basis of the judgment in Mensing, (1) on the fact that the supply of works of art that were supplied to him in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply by the creator (or his successors in title) also falls under the margin scheme of Article 311 et seq. of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) is the taxable amount to be determined, in accordance with paragraph 49 of that judgment, exclusively on the basis of EU law, with the result that it is not permissible for the national court adjudicating at last instance to interpret a provision of national law (in the present case: the third sentence of Paragraph 25a(3) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (the Law on turnover tax) to the effect that the tax due on the intra-Community acquisition does not form part of the taxable amount?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is Article 311 et seq. of Directive 2006/112 to be understood as meaning that, where the margin scheme is applied to supplies of works of art that were previously acquired from the creator (or his successors in title) within the Community, the tax due on the intra-Community acquisition reduces the profit margin, or is there an unintentional loophole in EU law in that respect that can only be removed by the EU legislature, not by the development of the law through case-law?






(1)  Judgment of 29 November 2018 (C-264/17, EU:C:2018:968).

(2)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-474/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — LD v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Criterion to assess professional experience — Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), professional experience








C_2022198EN.01003502.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/35






Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — LD v Commission
(Case T-474/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criterion to assess professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)
(2022/C 198/49)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: LD (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 22 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 31 October 2019 refusing the request for review of LD’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case C-181/22 P: Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, credit institution, damages, financial supervision, right to justice, trade licence








C_2022237EN.01003001.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/30






Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB
(Case C-181/22 P)
(2022/C 237/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Nemea Bank plc (represented by: A. Meriläinen, asianajaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea plc, Nevestor SA, European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court to be properly adjudicated, but to a different chamber with an entirely different composition of judges, given the bias and non-respect of the Appellant’s fundamental rights by the chamber having issued the said order, and










—


order the ECB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by erroneously assuming that there is no need to adjudicate in case T-321/17, erroneously failed to take into consideration that the purported effect ex tunc of the ECB decision of 30 June 2017 violated Art. 263 TFEU and erroneously assumed that the Appellant has no interest in the annulment of the ECB decision of license withdrawal of 23 March 2017.
Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law with respect to numerous infringements of essential procedural requirements.
Third ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 47 of the Charter prior to the commencement of the procedure and the continuing lack of an effective representation of the Appellant during the proceedings.
Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 41 of the Charter in deciding the application for damages to be inadmissible.
Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by failing to take into consideration the Appellant’s rights provided by the Art. 340 TFEU when deciding that the application for damages is inadmissible.
Case T-766/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark STONES — Declaration of revocation in part — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use in the European Union — Article 19(1) and Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022198EN.01003902.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/39






Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)
(Case T-766/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark STONES - Declaration of revocation in part - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use in the European Union - Article 19(1) and Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)
(2022/C 198/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: H.-M. Elo and E. Hodge, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 (Case R 274/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between PrenzMarien and Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PrenzMarien GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 8 March 2022 2022/C 113/02
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022113EN.01000201.xml










9.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 March 2022
(2022/C 113/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0892 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4441 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83185 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8803 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0111 




ISK


Iceland króna


145,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7925 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,642 




HUF


Hungarian forint


388,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,9103 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9494 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,8183 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4971 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3978 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5183 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5958 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4856 




KRW


South Korean won


1 344,71 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7051 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8805 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5715 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 639,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5556 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,900 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,156 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5346 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2866 




INR


Indian rupee


83,9240 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-134/22: Action brought on 9 March 2022 — OO v EIB
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, reassignment, staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2022191EN.01003401.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/34






Action brought on 9 March 2022 — OO v EIB
(Case T-134/22)
(2022/C 191/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 6 December 2021, notified to the applicant on that date (ARES CS-PERS/S&G/ER1 W2021-00710/CO/ps);










—


annul the decision of 27 February 2012 (ref: RH/OPR/2012-0251), which was never notified to the applicant;










—


annul the decision of 20 May 2021 (CS-PERS/HROPS/BAP/2021-0360), notified to the applicant’s adviser on 8 June 2021 together with the communication of 27 February 2012;










—


order the European Investment Bank to pay 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 failure to state reasons for the contested decisions, infringement of Article 31 of the EIB’s Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 11 of Protocol No 5 on the Statute of the EIB, and lack of a legal basis, and raising a plea of illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, in respect of point 2.1.1 of the administrative provisions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions governing ratione temporis the secondment of EIB staff, unilateral amendment of the contract contrary to the general rules on the equality of the parties to a contractual relationship and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.