do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10723 – BROOKFIELD / JINDAL GROUP / JINDAL PLASTIC FILMS BUSINESS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 246/02
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, investment company, iron and steel industry, merger control, plastics industry








C_2022246EN.01000201.xml










29.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10723 – BROOKFIELD / JINDAL GROUP / JINDAL PLASTIC FILMS BUSINESS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 246/02)
On 21 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 (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 32022M10723. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-417/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — AB v Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, medicinal product, pricing of medicines








C_2022326EN.01001102.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — AB v Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer
(Case C-417/22)
(2022/C 326/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: AB

Respondent authority: Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer

Question referred

Must Articles 87(3) and 90 of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC, (2) be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which prohibits price-based advertising of medicinal products?


(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2)  Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).
Case C-416/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 June 2022 — EDP — Energias de Portugal, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bond, capital increase, financial services, financial transaction, indirect tax, issue of securities, share, stamp duty, stock exchange








C_2022389EN.01000301.xml










10.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 June 2022 — EDP — Energias de Portugal, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-416/22)
(2022/C 389/04)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EDP — Energias de Portugal, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Must transactions involving (i) an offer for the cash purchase of debentures, (ii) the issue of debentures and (iii) a public offer for subscription of shares be considered ‘overall transactions’ within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice resulting from the judgments in Isabele Gielen (C-299/13) (1) and Air Berlin (C-573/16)? (2)











2.


Must the expression ‘formalities relating thereto’, used in Article 5(2)(b) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008, (3) be interpreted as covering the purchase of financial intermediation services that are ancillary to transactions involving (i) an offer for the cash purchase of debentures, (ii) the issue of debentures and (iii) a public offer for subscription of shares?










3.


Can Article 5(2)(b) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 be interpreted as precluding the levying of stamp duty on fees charged for financial intermediation services provided by a bank in relation to (i) the repurchase of debt securities, (ii) the issue and placing on the market of negotiable securities and (iii) the increase of capital through a public subscription of the shares issued, where such services include the obligation to identify and contact investors in order to distribute transferrable securities, receive subscription or purchase orders and, in some cases, purchase the transferrable securities to which the offer relates?










4.


Must the above questions be answered differently depending on whether the provision of financial services is required by law or optional?






(1)  EU:C:2014:2266.

(2)  EU:C:2017:772.

(3)  Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11).
Council Decision (EU) 2022/1000 of 21 June 2022 appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2022168EN.01007801.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 168/78








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/1000
of 21 June 2022
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, 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 Austrian 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 9 November 2021, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2021/1955 (2) appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions.












(3)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the national mandate on the basis of which Mr Bernhard BAIER was proposed for appointment.












(4)


The Austrian Government has proposed Mr Hannes WENINGER, representative of a local body who holds a local authority electoral mandate, Gemeinderat, Gemeinde Gießhübl (Local Councillor, Municipality of Gießhübl), 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 Hannes WENINGER, representative of a local body who holds an electoral mandate, Gemeinderat, Gemeinde Gießhübl (Local Councillor, Municipality of Gießhübl) 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, 21 June 2022.


For the Council


The President

C. BEAUNE
            





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

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2021/1955 of 9 November 2021 appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 398, 11.11.2021, p. 28).
Case C-409/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — UA v EUROBANK BULGARIA AD
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: banking, intra-EU payment, payment, power of attorney, provision of services








C_2022359EN.01004001.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/40






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — UA v EUROBANK BULGARIA AD
(Case C-409/22)
(2022/C 359/45)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad Sofia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UA

Defendant: EUROBANK BULGARIA AD

Questions referred







1.


Does a power of attorney by which the agent makes a disposal of assets on behalf of the payer by means of a payment order constitute a payment instrument within the meaning of Article 4(23) of [Directive 2007/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC]?










2.


Does the ‘apostille’ certificate placed on a document by the competent foreign authority in accordance with the 1961 Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents form part of the authentication procedure for both the payment instrument and the payment transaction within the meaning of Article 4(19) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 59(1) thereof?










3.


If the payment instrument (including one authorising a third person to make disposals on behalf of the payer) is formally (prima facie) regular, can the national court assume that the payment transaction is authorised, that is to say, that the payer has consented to its execution?






(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).
Council Decision (EU) 2022/1001 of 21 June 2022 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Netherlands, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2022168EN.01007901.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 168/79








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/1001
of 21 June 2022
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 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 Dutch 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 20 December 2021, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2021/2294 (2), appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the Committee of the Regions.












(3)


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












(4)


The Dutch Government has proposed Mr Johan HAMSTER, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Lid van de Gedeputeerde Staten van de provincie Groningen (‘ Gedeputeerde’ ) (Member of the Provincial Executive of the Province of Groningen (Regional Minister)), as a member of the Committee of the Regions until 15 March 2023,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Johan HAMSTER, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Lid van de Gedeputeerde Staten van de provincie Groningen (‘ Gedeputeerde’ ) (Member of the Provincial Executive of the Province of Groningen (Regional Minister)), is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions until 15 March 2023.


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




Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 2022.


For the Council


The President

C. BEAUNE
            





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

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2021/2294 of 20 December 2021 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 517).
Announcement pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions concerning the liquidation and subsequent winding-up of Cyprus Popular Bank Public CO LTD (Cypriot credit institution in liquidation) (the ‘Company’) 2022/C 238/08
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, bank, credit institution, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2022238EN.01001301.xml










21.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/13






Announcement pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions concerning the liquidation and subsequent winding-up of Cyprus Popular Bank Public CO LTD (Cypriot credit institution in liquidation) (the ‘Company’)
(2022/C 238/08)

Registered Office: 134 Limassol Avenue, 3rd Floor, 2015, Strovolos, Nicosia, Cyprus

Pursuant to the decision of the District Court of Nicosia issued on 31 May 2022 in relation to application no. 1/2021 filed by the Central Bank of Cyprus under the provisions of article 33B of the Business of Credit Institutions Law, 66(Ι)/97, as amended, the court orders for the liquidation of the Company and my appointment as liquidator, in accordance with the provisions of article 33B of the Business of Credit Institutions Law, 66(Ι)/97, as amended, have been issued.
All relevant announcements for the liquidation will be made in the following Internet:
https://www.ips-docs.com/case/22WUC009CYP/Gn8@pXmv


Avgoustinos PAPATHOMAS

Liquidator

The liquidator acts as representative of the Company, without any personal liability
Case T-367/22: Action brought on 21 June 2022 — PT v Commission
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), subsistence level income, transfer of pension rights








C_2022303EN.01005502.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/55






Action brought on 21 June 2022 — PT v Commission
(Case T-367/22)
(2022/C 303/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PT (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 4 October 2021 by which the authority authorised to conclude contracts calculated and paid the applicant’s retirement pension rights, in so far as the applicant’s pension rights transferred to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union which have no effect on her pension are not restored to her;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





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 fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful. The applicant submits that that provision does not provide for the reimbursement of transferred pension rights where those rights are not taken into account when calculating the amount of the pension to be paid.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights are unlawful. According to the applicant, those provisions do not provide for the restitution of transferred rights which have given rise to a ‘bonus’ in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union where that ‘bonus’ does not give rise to any increase in the amount of the pension paid.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the existence of unjust enrichment. The applicant claims that the absence of a legal basis providing for the restitution of transferred pension rights that have no effect where the mechanism of the minimum subsistence figure referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations applies, in fact gives rise to unjust enrichment of the European Union.
Case C-418/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) lodged on 21 June 2022 — SA CEZAM v Belgian State
Date: 2022-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, principle of proportionality, tax collection, tax law, taxpayer








C_2022359EN.01004301.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/43






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) lodged on 21 June 2022 — SA CEZAM v Belgian State
(Case C-418/22)
(2022/C 359/50)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SA CEZAM

Defendant: Belgian State

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 62[(2)], 63, 167, 206, 250 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of proportionality, as interpreted, in particular, in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2019, EN.SA (C-712/17), taken together with the principle of neutrality, preclude provisions of national legislation such as Article 70[(1)] of the VAT Code, Article 1 of and part V of Table G in the annex to Royal Decree No 41 setting the amounts of the proportionate tax penalties in relation to value added tax, pursuant to which:






—


in the event of errors as to content discovered on the inspection of accounts,










—


and in order to sanction the failure, in whole or in part, to enter taxable transactions in relation to which the amount of tax due is greater than EUR 1 250 euros,
that infringement is penalised by a flat-rate fine at a reduced rate of 20 % of the tax due, without it being possible, for the purposes of calculating the fine, to deduct therefrom any input tax paid, on account of the fact that it has not been deducted because no return was submitted, where, pursuant to [Article 1(2) of] Royal Decree No 41, the scale of reductions set out in Tables A to J of the annex to that decree applies only where the infringements sanctioned have been committed without any intention to evade or to facilitate the evasion of the tax?














2.


Is the answer to that question different if the taxable person has, voluntarily or otherwise, paid the amount of tax that has become chargeable following the inspection, so as to make good the shortfall in payment of the tax and thereby to allow the attainment of the objective of ensuring the correct collection of the tax?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.