do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-730/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematically and persistently exceeding limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2) in zone BG0006 (South-East), Bulgaria — Article 23(1) and Annex XV — Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ — Appropriate measures)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Yugoiztochen (Bulgaria), air quality, anhydride, atmospheric pollutant, environmental standard, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, pollution control, prevention of pollution








C_2022257EN.01000301.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/3






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-730/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematically and persistently exceeding limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2) in zone BG0006 (South-East), Bulgaria - Article 23(1) and Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)
(2022/C 257/03)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and T. Mitova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The Republic of Bulgaria,
by failing to ensure that, first, the hourly limit value for sulphur dioxide (S02) as from 2007 up to and including 2018, and, second, the daily fixed limit values for SO2 as from 2007 up to and including 2018, with the exception of 2010 and 2012, were not systematically and persistently exceeded in zone BG006 (South-East) has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and Annex XI of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.
by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the fixed limit values for SO2 in that zone and, in particular, by failing to ensure that the plans concerning air quality provide for appropriate measures to ensure that the period during which those limit values are exceeded is as short as possible, has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 23(1) and Annex XV section A of Directive 2008/50/CE.










2.


The Republic of Bulgaria is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case T-259/22: Action brought on 12 May 2022 — Mostovdrev v Council
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, equal treatment, fundamental rights, international sanctions, legal person, rights of the defence, territorial dispute








C_2022257EN.01003801.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/38






Action brought on 12 May 2022 — Mostovdrev v Council
(Case T-259/22)
(2022/C 257/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AAT Mostovdrev (Mosty, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and










—


orader the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.





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 that the contested measures contravene the duty to give reasons, infringe the right to a fair hearing and infringe the right to effective judicial protection.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the principle of equal treatment and misuse of powers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.






(1)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 103.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 1.
Case C-242/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 — Article 2b and Article 9(2) — Decision 2010/788/CFSP — Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) — Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 — Right to be heard)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms trade, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence








C_2022257EN.01001301.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/13






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union
(Case C-242/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 - Article 2b and Article 9(2) - Decision 2010/788/CFSP - Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) - Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 - Right to be heard)
(2022/C 257/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De. Wolf, T. Payan and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Lejeune initially, subsequently by S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Case T-258/22: Action brought on 12 May 2022 — BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding v Council
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, equal treatment, fundamental rights, international sanctions, legal person, rights of the defence, territorial dispute








C_2022257EN.01003701.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/37






Action brought on 12 May 2022 — BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding v Council
(Case T-258/22)
(2022/C 257/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AAT Byelorussian Steel Works — management company of ‘Byelorussian Metallurgical Company’ holding (BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding) (Zhlobin, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.





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 that the contested measures contravene the duty to give reasons, infringe the right to a fair hearing and infringe the right to effective judicial protection.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the principle of equal treatment and misuse of powers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.






(1)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 103.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 May 2022 2022/C 193/02
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022193EN.01000401.xml










12.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 May 2022
(2022/C 193/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0553 




JPY


Japanese yen


137,07 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85393 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5260 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0446 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1793 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,365 




HUF


Hungarian forint


379,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6575 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9470 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,1851 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5055 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3685 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2839 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6645 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4622 




KRW


South Korean won


1 343,99 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9275 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0893 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5365 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 308,87 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6185 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,992 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,492 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3859 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3870 




INR


Indian rupee


81,4935 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-260/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 — Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Articles 6, 16 and 18 — Proof — Information provided other than by responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire — Weighting of sales affecting the dumping calculation — Article 2(1) and (3) — Calculation of the normal value — Hierarchy between the calculation methods — Article 3(2) and (3) — Injury — Calculation of the undercutting margin — Cross-appeal — Article 2(11) — Full degree of dumping — Article 18 — Exemption from responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire — Lack of non-cooperation)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, paper








C_2022257EN.01000302.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)
(Case C-260/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 - Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Articles 6, 16 and 18 - Proof - Information provided other than by responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire - Weighting of sales affecting the dumping calculation - Article 2(1) and (3) - Calculation of the normal value - Hierarchy between the calculation methods - Article 3(2) and (3) - Injury - Calculation of the undercutting margin - Cross-appeal - Article 2(11) - Full degree of dumping - Article 18 - Exemption from responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire - Lack of non-cooperation)
(2022/C 257/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, and subsequently J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, B. Servais and V. Crochet, avocats) and European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) (represented by: H. Hobbelen, B. Vleeshouwers and K. Huyghebaert, advocaten, and J. Rivas, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;










3.


Orders the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10706 – HAL INVESTMENTS / ROYAL BOSKALIS WESTMINSTER) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 211/01
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: dredging, economic concentration, investment company, maritime transport, merger control, provision of services








C_2022211EN.01000101.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10706 – HAL INVESTMENTS / ROYAL BOSKALIS WESTMINSTER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 211/01)
On 12 May 2022, 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 32022M10706. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-714/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia — Italy) — U.I. Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 201 — Persons liable for payment of VAT — Import VAT — Union Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 77(3) — Joint and several liability of the indirect customs representative and the importing company — Customs duties)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, customs duties, customs regulations, customs union, import (EU), taxpayer








C_2022244EN.01000901.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia — Italy) — U.I. Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia
(Case C-714/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 201 - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Import VAT - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 77(3) - Joint and several liability of the indirect customs representative and the importing company - Customs duties)
(2022/C 244/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: U.I. Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 77(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, according to only that provision, an indirect customs representative is liable solely for the customs duties payable in respect of goods which he or she has declared for customs purposes, but not also for the import value added tax in respect of the same goods;










2.


Article 201 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an indirect customs representative cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the importer for the payment of import value added tax where there are no national provisions explicitly and unequivocally designating or acknowledging that indirect customs representative as being liable for that tax.






(1)  Date lodged: 24/12/2020.
Case C-322/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 12 May 2022 — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interest, personal income tax, tax collection, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2022359EN.01002301.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 12 May 2022 — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
(Case C-322/22)
(2022/C 359/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: E.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Question referred

Do the principles of effectiveness, sincere cooperation and equivalence expressed in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union …, or any other relevant principle laid down in EU law, preclude a provision of national law such as Article 78 § 5(1) and (2) of the ustawa z 29 sierpnia 1997 r. Ordynacja podatkowa (Law of 29 August 1997 establishing the Tax Code) (consolidated text: Dz. U. of 2012, item 749, as amended), which provides that interest on overpaid tax which is collected by a paying agent in a manner not consistent with EU law is not due to the taxable person for the period after the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union declaring that the collection of the tax is incompatible with EU law, where the request for a declaration of that overpayment was submitted by the taxable person after that time limit and the provisions of national law relating to the collection of the tax continue to be incompatible with EU law despite the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 April 2014, [E. … (C-190/12, EU:C:2014:249)]?
Case T-661/21: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Impact assessment report and other documents relating to a legislative initiative in the environmental field — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, deforestation, disclosure of information, right to information








C_2022284EN.01004002.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/40






Order of the General Court of 12 May 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-661/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Impact assessment report and other documents relating to a legislative initiative in the environmental field - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 284/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, ClientEarth AISBL, seeks annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 30 July 2021 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents relating to deforestation and forest degradation.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


The European Commission is to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Case C-320/22 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2022 by the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2022 in Case T-382/21, the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, building, building materials, plastics, registered trade mark, rubber industry, trade-mark law, tube








C_2022424EN.01001901.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/19






Appeal brought on 12 May 2022 by the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2022 in Case T-382/21, the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-320/22 P)
(2022/C 424/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spieker, D. Mienert and J. Selbmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Moviescreens Rental GmbH
By order of 28 September 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-260/22: Action brought on 12 May 2022 — Freixas Montpelt and Others v Committee of the Regions
Date: 2022-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, assistant, equal treatment, promotion








C_2022244EN.01004701.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/47






Action brought on 12 May 2022 — Freixas Montpelt and Others v Committee of the Regions
(Case T-260/22)
(2022/C 244/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: David Freixas Montpelt (Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Belgium), Gustavo Lopez Cutillas (Woluwé Saint Pierre, Belgium), Valeria Schirru (Brussels, Belgium), Svetlozar Andreev (Brussels) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


accordingly, annul the list of officials eligible for promotion in the 2021 promotion exercise, in so far as that list does not include the names of Mr Freixas Montpelt at grade AST5, Mr Lopez Cutillas at grade AD6, Ms Schirru at grade SC2 and Mr Andreev Svetlozar at grade AD10;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 11 February 2022 rejecting the applicants’ complaints;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 16 June 2021 is unlawful in that it infringes Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 16 June 2021 is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of non-discrimination.