do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-441/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty) (Subsidies — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 — Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty — Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legal certainty — Article 266 TFEU — Proportionality — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 103 of the Union Customs Code — Registration Regulation — Plea of illegality — Admissibility)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, cast-iron, countervailing charge, customs debt, import (EU), originating product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law, right to justice








C_2022294EN.01002501.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/25






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty)
(Case T-441/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 - Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legal certainty - Article 266 TFEU - Proportionality - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 103 of the Union Customs Code - Registration Regulation - Plea of illegality - Admissibility)
(2022/C 294/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited, following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 (OJ 2020 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case T-570/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v Commission (Economic and monetary union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Delegation of power — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Right to be heard — Right to property)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, Spain, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, professional secret, rights of the defence








C_2022294EN.01001901.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/19






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v Commission
(Case T-570/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Delegation of power - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Right to be heard - Right to property)
(2022/C 294/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, N. Chesaites, lawyers, and R. East, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyers, and G. Cahill, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Banco Santander, SA.;










3.


Orders the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation in the context of negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 on the modification of Switzerland’s WTO concessions with regard to seasoned meat
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: GATT, Switzerland, World Trade Organisation, agreement (EU), beef, meat product, pigmeat, revision of an agreement, tariff preference








L_2022150EN.01002001.xml










1.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 150/20







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation in the context of negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 on the modification of Switzerland’s WTO concessions with regard to seasoned meat

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation in the context of negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 on the modification of Switzerland’s WTO concessions with regard to seasoned meat (1), signed in Brussels on 9 December 2019, entered into force on 19 May 2022.


(1)  
            OJ L 233, 21.7.2020, p. 3.
Case C-126/22: Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Cancellations — Re-routing — Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic — Re-routing arranged by air passengers — Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, coronavirus disease, epidemic, indemnification, passenger rights, traveller








C_2022294EN.01001201.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/12






Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC
(Case C-126/22) (1)

(Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Cancellations - Re-routing - Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic - Re-routing arranged by air passengers - Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport)
(2022/C 294/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the order

Case C-126/22 is removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.


(1)  Filing date: 22.2.2022.
Case C-354/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2022 — Weingut A v Land Rhineland-Palatinate
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designation of origin, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, vinification, viticulture, wine








C_2022311EN.01000601.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2022 — Weingut A v Land Rhineland-Palatinate
(Case C-354/22)
(2022/C 311/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Weingut A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Land Rhineland-Palatinate

Questions referred







1.


Can winemaking have been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1) if the pressing takes place in a winepress installation which has been rented from another wine-growing holding for 24 hours and is exclusively at the disposal of the eponymous wine-growing holding during that period?










2.


If that question is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary that the pressing be carried out or at least supervised on-site by employees of the eponymous wine-growing holding, or can the pressing also be carried out by employees of the wine-growing holding renting out the winepress installation in accordance with the instructions of the eponymous wine-growing holding?










3.


If the pressing can also be carried out by employees of the wine-growing holding renting out the winepress installation, can they be given the authorisation to intervene in the pressing on the basis of an individual decision in the event of unexpected problems?










4.


Is attribution of the winemaking to the eponymous wine-growing holding precluded if the wine-growing holding which rents out the winepress installation and carries out the winepressing has an interest of its own in the manner in which the winepressing is carried out, because a yield- and quality-dependent supplement per hectolitre of Kabinett/Spätlese/Auslese wine on top of the area-based exploitation fee is agreed in the vineyard exploitation agreement which has also been concluded with that holding?






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation (OJ 2019 L 9, p. 2), in the current version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1375 of 11 June 2021 (OJ 2021 L 297, p. 16).
Case T-355/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA — Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01002202.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/22






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)
(Case T-355/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA - Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 294/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1974/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-363/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE — Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Right to be heard — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01002301.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/23






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)
(Case T-363/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE - Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 294/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 April 2020 (Case R 1532/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10643 – ORACLE / CERNER) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 274/01
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health care, information technology industry, medical data, merger control








C_2023274EN.01000101.xml










3.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10643 – ORACLE / CERNER)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 274/01)
On 1 June 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32022M10643. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-809/21: Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs formalities, import levy, infringement of EU law, interest, surveillance concerning imports








C_2022368EN.01002003.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/20






Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven
(Case C-809/21) (1)

(2022/C 368/34)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.
Case C-355/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2022 — BV Osteopathie Van Hauwermeiren v Belgische Staat
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, health service, tax collection, tax exemption, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_2022340EN.01001702.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2022 — BV Osteopathie Van Hauwermeiren v Belgische Staat
(Case C-355/22)
(2022/C 340/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BV Osteopathie Van Hauwermeiren

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Should the judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 April 1976 in Case 43/75 Defrenne v SABENA (1) be interpreted as granting the national court autonomous power — sua sponte and without submitting a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU — to maintain, on the basis of a purely internal legal provision, the effects, as regards the past, of national legislation concerning the VAT exemption for medical and paramedical services in respect of which the same court (having previously, in the same dispute, submitted three requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to the Court of Justice, which the Court answered by judgment of 27 June 2019 in Case C-597/17) (2) subsequently found that the contested provision is contrary to European Union law and partially annulled that contested provision of national law, while maintaining the effects, as regards the past, of that provision of national law found to be contrary to EU law, thereby completely denying taxable persons liable for VAT the right to a refund of VAT levied in breach of EU law?










2.


Is the national court entitled to maintain — autonomously and without submitting a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU — the effects, as regards the past, of a national provision held to be contrary to the VAT Directive, on the basis of a general reference to ‘important considerations of legal certainty affecting all the interests involved, both public and private’ and an alleged ‘practical impossibility of refunding unduly collected VAT to the recipients of the supplies or services provided by the taxable person or of claiming payment from them in the event of an erroneous failure to charge them, particularly where a large number of unidentified persons is involved, or where the taxable persons do not have an accounting system that enables them subsequently to identify the supplies or services in question and their value’ when the taxable persons have not even been given the possibility of demonstrating that such a ‘practical impossibility’ does not exist?






(1)  EU:C:1976:56.

(2)  EU:C:2019:544.
Case T-803/21: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — NQ v Council and Others
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fact-finding mission, freedom of expression, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, staff assessment








C_2022284EN.01006002.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/60






Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — NQ v Council and Others
(Case T-803/21) (1)

(2022/C 284/82)
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.
Case T-316/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO — Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING — Genuine use of the mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, piping, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2022284EN.01003002.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/30






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO — Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING)
(Case T-316/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 284/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Worldwide Machinery Ltd (Channelview, Texas, United States) (represented by: B. Woltering, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Scaip SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti and A. Guareschi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 873/2020-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Worldwide Machinery and Scaip.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Worldwide Machinery Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.