do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-705/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) — United Kingdom) — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid schemes implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporate income tax — Decision (EU) 2019/700 — Non-taxation of passive interest and royalty income — Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery obligation — Scope — Domestic provision which was not the subject of the Commission’s investigation concerning the State aid at issue — Set-off of the tax paid abroad in order to prevent double taxation)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Gibraltar, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, double taxation, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption








C_2022418EN.01000402.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/4






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) — United Kingdom) — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax
(Case C-705/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid schemes implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporate income tax - Decision (EU) 2019/700 - Non-taxation of passive interest and royalty income - Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery obligation - Scope - Domestic provision which was not the subject of the Commission’s investigation concerning the State aid at issue - Set-off of the tax paid abroad in order to prevent double taxation)
(2022/C 418/05)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited

Defendant: Commissioner of Income Tax

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime
must be interpreted as meaning
that it does not preclude the national authorities responsible for the recovery from the beneficiary of aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market from applying a domestic provision which prescribes a mechanism for the set-off of taxes paid by that beneficiary abroad against taxes for which it is liable in Gibraltar, where it appears that that provision was applicable on the date of the operations in question.


(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.
Case T-576/22: Action brought on 15 September 2022 — Bora Creations v EUIPO — True Skincare (TRUE SKIN)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022424EN.01004402.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/44






Action brought on 15 September 2022 — Bora Creations v EUIPO — True Skincare (TRUE SKIN)
(Case T-576/22)
(2022/C 424/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Andratx, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange and M. Ebner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: True Skincare Ltd (Ascot, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TRUE SKIN — Application for registration No 18 170 353

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2022 in Case R 1712/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-568/22: Action brought on 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, financial services, information technology industry, insurance, registered trade mark, rental business, teaching materials, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2022418EN.01005301.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/53






Action brought on 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)
(Case T-568/22)
(2022/C 418/68)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: XNT ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: A. Renck, C. Stöber and M.-A. de Dampierre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exane (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EXANE — European Union trade mark No 14 289 433

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2022 in Case R 2093/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in the event that the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case C-675/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — Colin Brown v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 4(1)(a) and (b) — EU official who is a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who during the 10 years before his entry into service habitually resided within the territory of the State in which he is employed — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Acquisition by that EU official of the nationality of the State in which he is employed — Withdrawal of the entitlement to receive an expatriation allowance — Action for annulment)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European official, United Kingdom, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, national, residence, staff regulations (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2022418EN.01000401.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — Colin Brown v European Commission, Council of the European Union
(Case C-675/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 4(1)(a) and (b) - EU official who is a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who during the 10 years before his entry into service habitually resided within the territory of the State in which he is employed - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Acquisition by that EU official of the nationality of the State in which he is employed - Withdrawal of the entitlement to receive an expatriation allowance - Action for annulment)
(2022/C 418/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Colin Brown (represented by: I. Van Damme, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Colin Brown to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Decides that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10868 – DIGITALBRIDGE / BROOKFIELD / DTAG / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 363/02
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology, investment, investment company, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2022363EN.01000201.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10868 – DIGITALBRIDGE / BROOKFIELD / DTAG / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 363/02)
On 15 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 32022M10868. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-518/21: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products — Directive (EU) 2019/904 — Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, environmental impact, environmental protection, equal treatment, non-durable goods, ownership, paper, plastic waste, plastics








C_2022463EN.01004501.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/45






Order of the General Court of 15 September 2022 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission
(Case T-518/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Commission Guidelines on single-use plastic products - Directive (EU) 2019/904 - Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 463/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Paper Packaging Alliance (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of points 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 and of Tables 4-2 and 4-8 of the Commission guidelines on single-use plastic products in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (OJ 2021 C 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










3.


The European Paper Packaging Alliance shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission except those relating to the applications to intervene.










4.


The European Paper Packaging Alliance, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Case C-420/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 48 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Article 6 — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 8 — Right to be present at the trial — Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of five years — Conditions for holding a trial in the absence of the person concerned — Obligation to be present at the trial provided for under national law)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, foreign national, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, removal, rights of the defence








C_2022418EN.01000201.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/2






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HN
(Case C-420/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 48 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 6 - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8 - Right to be present at the trial - Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of five years - Conditions for holding a trial in the absence of the person concerned - Obligation to be present at the trial provided for under national law)
(2022/C 418/02)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

HN

Intervening party: Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation on suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings to be present at their trial.










2.


Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343
must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a trial to be held in the absence of the suspect or accused person, where that person is outside that Member State and is unable to enter its territory because of an entry ban imposed on him or her by the competent authorities of that Member State.






(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Case C-18/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation No 1896/2006 — Article 16(2) — 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to the European order for payment — Article 20 — Review procedure — Article 26 — Application of national law for procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that regulation — COVID 19 pandemic — National legislation which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for several weeks)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, civil proceedings, coronavirus disease, epidemic, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial review, limitation of legal proceedings, national law








C_2022418EN.01000601.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU
(Case C-18/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation No 1896/2006 - Article 16(2) - 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to the European order for payment - Article 20 - Review procedure - Article 26 - Application of national law for procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that regulation - COVID 19 pandemic - National legislation which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for several weeks)
(2022/C 418/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Uniqa Versicherungen AG

Defendant: VU

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16, 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015,
must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation, which was adopted when the COVID-19 pandemic arose and which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for approximately five weeks, to the 30-day time limit laid down by Article 16(2) of that regulation for the defendant to lodge a statement of opposition to a European order for payment.


(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Case C-22/21: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) — Concept of ‘other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’ — Assessment criteria)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, dependant, freedom of movement, household, residence permit








C_2022418EN.01000602.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-22/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) - Concept of ‘other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’ - Assessment criteria)
(2022/C 418/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SRS, AA

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC,
must be interpreted as meaning that:
the concept of ‘any other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’, mentioned in that provision, refers to persons who have a relationship of dependence with that citizen, based on close and stable personal ties, forged within the same household, in the context of a shared domestic life going beyond a mere temporary cohabitation entered into for reasons of pure convenience.


(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Case C-326/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Insolvency proceedings — Refusal by the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant the request of the board of directors of a credit institution seeking an order instructing the insolvency administrator of that institution to grant the lawyer authorised by that board access to the premises, information, staff and resources of that institution — Competence of the author of the measure — Article 263 TFEU — Measure open to an annulment action — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, access to information, bank, banking supervision, board of directors, financial solvency, financial supervision








C_2022418EN.01001001.xml










31.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank
(Case C-326/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Insolvency proceedings - Refusal by the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant the request of the board of directors of a credit institution seeking an order instructing the insolvency administrator of that institution to grant the lawyer authorised by that board access to the premises, information, staff and resources of that institution - Competence of the author of the measure - Article 263 TFEU - Measure open to an annulment action - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 418/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Bonnard, V. Hümpfner and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: J. Davidoviča, I. Hūna and K. Pommere)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.