do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-342/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A SCPI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax on the income of legal persons — Exemption for investment funds — Conditions for exemption — Condition related to the fund being in contractual form)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, establishment, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, investment company, property leasing, real property, sale, share, tax exemption








C_2022213EN.01000901.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/9






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A SCPI
(Case C-342/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Tax on the income of legal persons - Exemption for investment funds - Conditions for exemption - Condition related to the fund being in contractual form)
(2022/C 213/09)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A SCPI

Interested party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, by limiting entitlement to the exemption of rental income and of profits from the disposal of immovable property or shares in companies owning immovable property solely to investment funds constituted in accordance with contract law, excludes from entitlement to that exemption a non-resident alternative investment fund constituted in accordance with statute, even though that fund, which benefits from a system of tax transparency in the Member State in which it is established, is not subject to income tax in that latter Member State.


(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Council Decision (EU) 2022/620 of 7 April 2022 appointing a member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Germany, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2022115EN.01007301.xml










13.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 115/73








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/620
of 7 April 2022
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/852 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the Committee of the Regions (1),


Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.












(2)


On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(3)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Mark WEINMEISTER.












(4)


The German government has proposed Mr Uwe BECKER, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Staatssekretär für Europaangelegenheiten, politische Verantwortung gegenüber dem Hessischen Landtag (State Secretary for European Affairs, politically accountable to the Parliament of the Federal State of Hesse), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Uwe BECKER, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Staatssekretär für Europaangelegenheiten, politische Verantwortung gegenüber dem Hessischen Landtag (State Secretary for European Affairs, politically accountable to the Parliament of the Federal State of Hesse), is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025.


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




Done at Luxembourg, 7 April 2022.


For the Council


The President

J. DENORMANDIE
            





(1)  
            OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 13.

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).
Case C-521/20: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — J.P. v B.d.S.L. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Tolls — Non-payment — Penalties — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure — Lack of sufficient information — No link between the interpretation of EU law sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, large vehicle, road transport tariff, toll, traffic offence








C_2022359EN.01001302.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/13






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — J.P. v B.d.S.L.
(Case C-521/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Tolls - Non-payment - Penalties - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure - Lack of sufficient information - No link between the interpretation of EU law sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2022/C 359/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Complainant: J.P.

Defendant authority: B.d.S.L.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 15 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case T-282/21: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — SS and ST v Frontex (Actions for failure to act — Right to asylum — Invitation to act — Position taken by Frontex — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Aegean Sea, EU migration policy, border control, external border of the EU, operation of the Institutions, removal, return migration, right of asylum








C_2022266EN.01002602.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/26






Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — SS and ST v Frontex
(Case T-282/21) (1)

(Actions for failure to act - Right to asylum - Invitation to act - Position taken by Frontex - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 266/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: SS, ST (represented by: M. Van den Broeck and L. Lambert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, S. Drew and W. Szmidt, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that Frontex unlawfully failed to adopt, under Article 46(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ 2019 L 295, p. 1), a decision suspending or terminating its activities in the Aegean Sea region.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


SS, ST and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Case T-364/21: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf) (EU trade mark — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, packaging product, paper, paperboard, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2022266EN.01002702.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/27






Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)
(Case T-364/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 266/33)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2021 (Case R 2196/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a leaf as an EU trade mark

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
European Parliament decision of 7 April 2022 referring the matter back to the committee responsible for interinstitutional negotiations on the basis of the unamended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks (COM(2022)0135 –C9-0126/2022 — 2022/0090(COD))
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, EU energy policy, consumer protection, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, security of supply, self-sufficiency in energy, storage of hydrocarbons, strategic reserves








C_2022434EN.01012501.xml










15.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/125






P9_TA(2022)0119
Gas storage ***I
European Parliament decision of 7 April 2022 referring the matter back to the committee responsible for interinstitutional negotiations on the basis of the unamended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks (COM(2022)0135 –C9-0126/2022 — 2022/0090(COD)) (1)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
(2022/C 434/26)
 


(1)  Decision adopted under Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure (C9-0126/2022).
Case C-709/21: Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — Proceedings brought by MK
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, constitutional court, criminal proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judge, judgment of the Court (EU), jurisdiction, primacy of EU law, right to justice








C_2022359EN.01006003.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/60






Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — Proceedings brought by MK
(Case C-709/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/70)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.
Case T-766/21: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machine tool, metals, metalworking, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022276EN.01001101.xml










18.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/11






Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)
(Case T-766/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 276/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 (Case R 2198/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Daw and Sapa Building Systems.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.
Case T-645/21: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Bloom v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 — European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund — Financial support granted under shared management with the Member States — Ineligible operations or expenditure — Derogations from ineligibility — Association for the protection of the marine environment — Legislative act — No individual concern — No direct concern — Right to effective judicial protection — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, admissibility, common fisheries policy, eligibility criteria, environmental protection, fishery management, fishing regulations, marine environment, right to justice








C_2022266EN.01002802.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/28






Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Bloom v Parliament and Council
(Case T-645/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 - European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund - Financial support granted under shared management with the Member States - Ineligible operations or expenditure - Derogations from ineligibility - Association for the protection of the marine environment - Legislative act - No individual concern - No direct concern - Right to effective judicial protection - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 266/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bloom (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Saynac and L. Chovet-Ballester, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: G. Ricci and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and A. Nowak-Salles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (OJ 2021 L 247, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application to intervene.










3.


Bloom shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










4.


The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Case C-249/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop — Germany) — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 8(2) — Distance contracts concluded by electronic means — Information requirements for the trader — Activation of a button or a similar function in order to place the order with an obligation to pay — Unambiguous formulation corresponding to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ — Taking account only of the words on the button or similar function for the purposes of assessing the ‘corresponding’ nature of such a formulation)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, contract terms, electronic commerce, payment








C_2022213EN.01001602.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/16






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop — Germany) — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.
(Case C-249/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 8(2) - Distance contracts concluded by electronic means - Information requirements for the trader - Activation of a button or a similar function in order to place the order with an obligation to pay - Unambiguous formulation corresponding to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ - Taking account only of the words on the button or similar function for the purposes of assessing the ‘corresponding’ nature of such a formulation)
(2022/C 213/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining — in the context of an ordering process relating to the conclusion of a distance contract by electronic means — whether a form of words displayed on the ordering button or on a similar function, such as the formulation ‘complete booking’, is a formulation ‘corresponding’ to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’, within the meaning of that provision, only the words that appear on that button or that similar function should be taken into account.


(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Case C-568/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — J v H Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Scope — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘judgment’ — Order for payment made in another Member State after a summary contested examination of a judgment given in a third State — Article 39 — Enforceability in Member States)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2022213EN.01001301.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/13






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — J v H Limited
(Case C-568/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Order for payment made in another Member State after a summary contested examination of a judgment given in a third State - Article 39 - Enforceability in Member States)
(2022/C 213/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J

Defendant: H Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) and Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an order for payment made by a court of a Member State on the basis of final judgments delivered in a third State constitutes a judgment and is enforceable in the other Member States if it was made at the end of adversarial proceedings in the Member State of origin and was declared to be enforceable in that Member State. The fact that it is recognised as a judgment does not, however, deprive the party against whom enforcement is sought of the right to apply, pursuant to Article 46 of that regulation, for a refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.