do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-474/21: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2022408EN.01004302.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/43






Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)
(Case T-474/21) (1)

(2022/C 408/58)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10791 – DAIMLER TRUCK / NEXTERA / BFM / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 381/02
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United States, consultancy, economic concentration, electric vehicle, electrical energy, energy grid, energy industry, investment company, large vehicle, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2022381EN.01000201.xml










4.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10791 – DAIMLER TRUCK / NEXTERA / BFM / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 381/02)
On 8 September 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 32022M10791. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-608/21: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2022408EN.01004401.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/44






Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
(Case T-608/21) (1)

(2022/C 408/59)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case C-507/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 — Puma SE and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam — Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Competence ratione temporis — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, enforcement of ruling, equal treatment, footwear industry, import (EU), leather, originating product








C_2022408EN.01002202.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/22






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 — Puma SE and Others v European Commission
(Case C-507/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam - Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Competence ratione temporis - Principle of non-discrimination)
(2022/C 408/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia SL, Puma Retail AG (represented by: J. Cornelis and E. Vermulst, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Luengo and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia SL and Puma Retail AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Case C-98/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt R v W-GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1), Article 9(1), Article 167 and Article 168(a) — Deduction of input tax — Definition of ‘taxable person’ — Holding company — Expenditure linked to a shareholder contribution in kind to its subsidiaries — No contribution of expenditure to the general costs — Subsidiaries’ activities largely tax-exempt)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, holding company, overheads, subsidiary, tax exemption, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2022408EN.01001701.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/17






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt R v W-GmbH
(Case C-98/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1), Article 9(1), Article 167 and Article 168(a) - Deduction of input tax - Definition of ‘taxable person’ - Holding company - Expenditure linked to a shareholder contribution in kind to its subsidiaries - No contribution of expenditure to the general costs - Subsidiaries’ activities largely tax-exempt)
(2022/C 408/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt R

Defendant: W-GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 167 thereof,
must be interpreted as meaning that:
a holding company which carries out taxable output transactions in favour of subsidiaries is not entitled to deduct the input tax levied on the services that it obtains from third parties and supplies to the subsidiaries in return for the grant of a share in the general profit, where, first, the input services have direct and immediate links not with the holding company’s own transactions but with the largely tax-exempt activities of the subsidiaries, second, those services are not included in the price of the taxable transactions carried out in favour of the subsidiaries and, third, the said services are not part of the general costs of the holding company’s own economic activity.


(1)  
            OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2022/C 345/03
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, credit guarantee, financial solvency








C_2022345EN.01000301.xml










8.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/3






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2022/C 345/03)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


10 May 2022




Case No


88678




Decision No


101/22/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Temporary Crisis Framework: loan guarantee scheme




Legal basis


Parliament decision authorising the scheme and its budget in Innst. 270 S (2021-2022), (1) amending the budget proposed by the Government in Prop. 78 S (2021-2022), (2) and a regulation from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Export Finance Norway.




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


To secure liquidity in the form of guarantees provided by the Norwegian State, for undertakings suffering a lack of liquidity due to the inability of their Russian, Belarusian and/or Ukrainian customers to settle their outstanding balances as a direct or indirect result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions.




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


NOK 400 million




Intensity


The guarantee can cover up to 90 % of the loan principal, guaranteed loan shall not amount to more than NOK 50 million per undertaking.




Duration


11 May 2022 until 31 December 2022.




Economic sectors


Maritime sector




Name and address of the granting authority







Eksfin – Export Finance Norway




Postal address:




PB 1763 Vika




N-0122 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/


(1)  https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Vedtak/Sak/?p=88801

(2)  Prop. 78 S (2021–2022) (regjeringen.no)
Case C-659/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ET v Ministerstvo životního prostředí (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 — Article 8(3)(d) — Concept of ‘specimens of animal species that are born and bred in captivity’ — Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 — Article 1(3) — Concept of ‘breeding stock’ — Article 54(2) — Establishment of the breeding stock — Controlled ancestry)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bird, breeding animal, protected species, protection of animal life








C_2022408EN.01001201.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/12






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ET v Ministerstvo životního prostředí
(Case C-659/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein - Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - Article 8(3)(d) - Concept of ‘specimens of animal species that are born and bred in captivity’ - Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 - Article 1(3) - Concept of ‘breeding stock’ - Article 54(2) - Establishment of the breeding stock - Controlled ancestry)
(2022/C 408/13)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ET

Defendant: Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein,
must be interpreted as meaning that:
the concept of ‘breeding stock’, within the meaning of that provision, does not include the ancestors of specimens bred in a breeding operation which have never been owned or kept by that operation.










2.


Article 54(2) of Regulation No 865/2006, read in conjunction with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations,
must be interpreted as:
precluding a specimen, kept by a breeder, of a species of animal referred to in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, from being regarded as having been born and bred in captivity, within the meaning of Article 8(3) of that regulation, where the ancestors of that specimen, which do not form part of the breeding stock of that breeder, were acquired by a third party before the entry into force of those regulations in a manner which is detrimental to the survival of the species concerned in the wild.






(1)  
            OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case C-399/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB (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 — Article 24(4) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over the registration or validity of patents — Scope — Patent application deposited and patent granted in a third State — Status of inventor — Proprietor of the right to an invention)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: invention, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, patent law, third country








C_2022408EN.01002101.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/21






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB
(Case C-399/21) (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 - Article 24(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over the registration or validity of patents - Scope - Patent application deposited and patent granted in a third State - Status of inventor - Proprietor of the right to an invention)
(2022/C 408/24)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IRnova AB

Defendant: FLIR Systems AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(4) 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:
not applying to proceedings aimed at determining, in the context of an action based on alleged inventor or co-inventor status, whether a person is the proprietor of the right to inventions covered by patent applications deposited and by patents granted in third countries.


(1)  
            OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Case C-188/22: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — VP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 — Taking of evidence — Written evidence of a person residing in a Member State other than the Member State of the court having jurisdiction — Possibility of having recourse to the means of taking evidence provided for by national law and not to that provided for by that regulation)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, civil proceedings, evidence, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, national law, residence








C_2022408EN.01002301.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/23






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — VP
(Case C-188/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Taking of evidence - Written evidence of a person residing in a Member State other than the Member State of the court having jurisdiction - Possibility of having recourse to the means of taking evidence provided for by national law and not to that provided for by that regulation)
(2022/C 408/27)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VP

Defendant: KS represented by AS

Operative part of the order

Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State wishing to take evidence from a person residing in another Member State is not necessarily obliged, in order to carry out such an act of investigation, to use methods of taking evidence provided for by that regulation, but may use the written statement of that person, in accordance with the law of the Member State to which that court belongs, and to do so without obtaining the authorisation of the central body or competent authority of the requested Member State, within the meaning of Article 3 of that regulation.


(1)  Date lodged: 11.3.2022.
Case C-716/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — RTL Television GmbH v Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission — Directive 93/83/EEC — Article 1(3) — Concept of ‘cable retransmission’ — Provider of the retransmission not having the status of a cable operator — Simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television and radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public, performed by the operator of a hotel establishment, by means of a satellite dish, a cable and television or radio sets — None)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, cable distribution, copyright, hotel industry, satellite communications, television equipment, transmission network








C_2022408EN.01001301.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/13






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — RTL Television GmbH v Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.
(Case C-716/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission - Directive 93/83/EEC - Article 1(3) - Concept of ‘cable retransmission’ - Provider of the retransmission not having the status of a cable operator - Simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television and radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public, performed by the operator of a hotel establishment, by means of a satellite dish, a cable and television or radio sets - None)
(2022/C 408/14)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RTL Television GmbH

Defendants: Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, read in conjunction with Article 8(1) thereof,
must be interpreted as meaning:






—


that it does not provide for an exclusive right for broadcasting organisations to authorise or prohibit cable retransmission, within the meaning of that provision, and










—


that the simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television or radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public, where that retransmission is carried out by a person other than a cable operator, within the meaning of that directive, such as a hotel, does not constitute cable retransmission.






(1)  
            OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10844 – INFRAVIA / P4 / FIBERFORCE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 360/04
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Poland, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, mobile communication, provision of services, retail trade, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_2022360EN.01000401.xml










20.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 360/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10844 – INFRAVIA / P4 / FIBERFORCE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 360/04)
On 8 September 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 32022M10844. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-625/21: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2022408EN.01004402.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/44






Order of the General Court of 8 September 2022 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)
(Case T-625/21) (1)

(2022/C 408/60)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10797 – PCG / PERSTORP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 64/01
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, petrochemicals








C_2023064EN.01000101.xml










21.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10797 – PCG / PERSTORP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 64/01)
On 8 September 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 32022M10797. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.