do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-79/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Yieh United Steel Corp. v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2 — Calculation of the normal value — Calculation of the production cost — Production losses — Refusal to deduct the value of recycled scrap — Determination of the normal value on the basis of sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption — Exclusion from the basis of calculation used to determine the normal value of sales on the domestic market of the exporting country where those sales concern products intended for export)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Taiwan, import (EU), originating product, plate, steel








C_2022237EN.01000302.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Yieh United Steel Corp. v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL
(Case C-79/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2 - Calculation of the normal value - Calculation of the production cost - Production losses - Refusal to deduct the value of recycled scrap - Determination of the normal value on the basis of sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption - Exclusion from the basis of calculation used to determine the normal value of sales on the domestic market of the exporting country where those sales concern products intended for export)
(2022/C 237/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by J. F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, and subsequently by J.F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, avocats, and by G. Papaconstantinou, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.






(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Case C-612/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education — Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum — Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, education, private education, provision of services, services of general interest, tax exemption, teaching curriculum








C_2022237EN.01001101.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/11






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-612/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum - Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes)
(2022/C 237/13)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Happy Education SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘organisation recognised as having similar objects’ to those of an educational body governed by public law, for the purposes of that provision, does not cover a private entity which carries out teaching activities in the public interest consisting of, inter alia, the organisation of activities supplementing the school curriculum, such as homework support classes, educational programmes and foreign language classes, and which has obtained authorisation from the National Trade Register Office in the form of the attribution of the CAEN code 8559 — ‘Other education n.e.c.’, within the meaning of the Classification of National Economic Activities, where that entity does not, in any event, satisfy the conditions under national law for obtaining such recognition.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Special report No 6/2022 EU intellectual property rights – protection not fully waterproof 2022/C 174/03
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, application of EU law, consumer protection, customs regulations, designation of origin, illicit trade, industrial property, labelling, quality control of agricultural products, single market








C_2022174EN.01001701.xml










28.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/17






Special report No 6/2022
EU intellectual property rights – protection not fully waterproof
(2022/C 174/03)
The European Court of Auditors has published its special report No 6/2022 ‘EU intellectual property rights – protection not fully waterproof’.
The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61056.
Case C-286/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2022 — KBC Verzekeringen NV v P&V Verzekeringen CVBA
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, compulsory insurance, damage, electric vehicle, insurance indemnity, insurance law, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2022303EN.01001401.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2022 — KBC Verzekeringen NV v P&V Verzekeringen CVBA
(Case C-286/22)
(2022/C 303/19)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: KBC Verzekeringen NV

Respondent: P&V Verzekeringen CVBA

Question referred

Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive (EU) 2021/2118 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021, which defines ‘vehicle’ as ‘any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled’, must be interpreted as meaning that an electric bicycle (Speed-Pedelec) whose engine provides pedal assistance only, so that the bicycle does not move autonomously, without muscular power, but only by means of engine and muscular power, and an electric bicycle which is equipped with a boost function, whereby the bicycle accelerates to a speed of 20 km/h when the boost button is pressed without pedalling, yet muscular power is required in order to be able to use the boost function, are not vehicles within the meaning of that directive?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

(2)  Directive (EU) 2021/2118 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021 amending Directive 2009/103/EC relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2021 L 430, p. 1).
Case C-72/21: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘PRODEX’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Subheading 4418 20 — Scope — Doors and their frames and thresholds — MDF panels and mouldings — First sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Incomplete or unfinished article — Concept)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, building services, common customs tariff, customs union, specification of tariff heading, wood product








C_2022237EN.01001402.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/14






Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘PRODEX’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-72/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Subheading 4418 20 - Scope - Doors and their frames and thresholds - MDF panels and mouldings - First sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article - Concept)
(2022/C 237/18)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘PRODEX’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 44180 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, read in conjunction with the first sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of that nomenclature, in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in its version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering, as separate articles, goods described as wooden panels and mouldings, the profile and decorative finish of which objectively indicate that they are intended for the manufacture of door frames and thresholds, even if incomplete or unfinished, provided that those goods have undergone working which renders them exclusively usable as such and that they thus have the essential characteristics of finished articles.


(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Payments to beneficiaries — Article 75 — Time limit for payment — Compliance — None — Tacit refusal of the application for aid)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, farmer, payment








C_2022237EN.01001602.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/16






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’
(Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Payments to beneficiaries - Article 75 - Time limit for payment - Compliance - None - Tacit refusal of the application for aid)
(2022/C 237/21)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants:‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21)

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that failure by the paying agency of a Member State to pay, before the end of the time limit set down in that provision, aid applied for by a farmer, should not be regarded as constituting a tacit decision to reject the aid application in question, irrespective of whether the farmer concerned has or has not been informed of any additional checks which would justify such an overrun of that time limit.


(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Case C-531/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 3 — General obligation concerning the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights — Article 14 — Concept of ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs’ — Consultation of a patent lawyer — Absence of opportunity for the national court to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: lawyer, legal expenses, patent law, principle of proportionality








C_2022237EN.01000902.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/9






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
(Case C-531/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 3 - General obligation concerning the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights - Article 14 - Concept of ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs’ - Consultation of a patent lawyer - Absence of opportunity for the national court to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party)
(2022/C 237/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NovaText GmbH

Defendant: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or an interpretation thereof which does not allow the court before which an action is brought under that directive to take due account, in each case brought before it, of its specific characteristics for the purposes of assessing whether the legal costs incurred by the successful party are reasonable and proportionate.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 April 2022 2022/C 174/02
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022174EN.01001601.xml










28.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/16






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 April 2022
(2022/C 174/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0583 




JPY


Japanese yen


135,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4410 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84215 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4035 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0229 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7838 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,550 




HUF


Hungarian forint


379,74 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7043 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9480 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,6857 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4828 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3572 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3045 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6118 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4602 




KRW


South Korean won


1 341,98 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8406 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9377 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5650 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 259,86 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6142 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,195 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,331 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3045 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6259 




INR


Indian rupee


81,0705 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-666/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 — Temporal scope — Article 2(7) — Market economy treatment — Denied — Article 2(10) — Adjustments — Burden of proof — Article 3 — Determination of injury — Duty of care of the European Commission)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, sweetener








C_2022237EN.01000301.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS
(Case C-666/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 - Temporal scope - Article 2(7) - Market economy treatment - Denied - Article 2(10) - Adjustments - Burden of proof - Article 3 - Determination of injury - Duty of care of the European Commission)
(2022/C 237/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and P. Billiet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and A. Demeneix and, finally, by T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents), Hyet Sweet SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-231/22: Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, domestic animal, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022237EN.01006901.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/69






Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)
(Case T-231/22)
(2022/C 237/89)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark doglover — Application No 18 107 487

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2022 in Case R 720/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-637/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax — Article 30a(1) — Concept of ‘voucher’ — Article 30a(3) — Concept of ‘“multi-purpose” voucher’ — Sale of a card entitling the cardholder to a number of tourist services for a limited period)
Date: 2022-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, tourism








C_2022237EN.01001102.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB
(Case C-637/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax - Article 30a(1) - Concept of ‘voucher’ - Article 30a(3) - Concept of ‘“multi-purpose” voucher’ - Sale of a card entitling the cardholder to a number of tourist services for a limited period)
(2022/C 237/14)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Skatteverket

Respondent: DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that an instrument which gives the bearer thereof the right to benefit from various services at a given place, for a limited period and up to a certain amount, may constitute a ‘voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(1) of that directive, even if, on account of the limited validity period of that instrument, an average consumer cannot benefit from all the services offered. That instrument constitutes a ‘multi-purpose voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(3) of that directive, since the value added tax due on those services is not known at the time of issuance of that instrument.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.