do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-330/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98 — Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services — Annex III, point 14 — Concept of the ‘use of sporting facilities’ — Fitness centres — Individual or group coaching)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, sports facilities, tax relief








C_2022424EN.01001202.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/12






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-330/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 14 - Concept of the ‘use of sporting facilities’ - Fitness centres - Individual or group coaching)
(2022/C 424/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The Escape Center BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 14 of Annex III thereto,
must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting of permission to use sporting facilities in a fitness centre and the supply of individual or group coaching may be subject to a reduced rate of value added tax where that coaching is linked to the use of those facilities and is necessary for the practice of sports and physical education or where that coaching is ancillary to the use of those facilities or to their actual use.


(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Joined Cases C-518/20 and C-727/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — XP v Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (C-518/20) and AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH (C-727/20) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7(1) — Right to paid annual leave — Total invalidity or incapacity for work due to illness occurring during a leave year — National legislation providing for the loss of entitlement to paid annual leave on expiry of a certain period — Employer’s obligation to enable the worker to exercise his or her right to paid annual leave)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, illness, incapacity for work, labour law, paid leave








C_2022424EN.01000501.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — XP v Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (C-518/20) and AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH (C-727/20)
(Joined Cases C-518/20 and C-727/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7(1) - Right to paid annual leave - Total invalidity or incapacity for work due to illness occurring during a leave year - National legislation providing for the loss of entitlement to paid annual leave on expiry of a certain period - Employer’s obligation to enable the worker to exercise his or her right to paid annual leave)
(2022/C 424/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: XP (C-518/20), AR (C-727/20)

Defendants: Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (C-518/20), St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH (C-727/20)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the entitlement to paid annual leave, acquired by a worker during the leave year in the course of which that worker actually worked before finding him or herself in a state of total invalidity or incapacity for work due to illness which has persisted since, may lapse, either at the end of a carry-over period authorised under national law, or even at a later stage, where the employer has not, in good time, enabled the worker to exercise that entitlement.


(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

OJ C 169, 3.5.2021.
Case C-120/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — LB v TO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Allowance in lieu of leave not taken after the termination of the employment relationship — Three-year limitation period — Starting point — Adequate information provided to the worker)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, arrangement of working time, labour law, limitation of legal proceedings, paid leave, termination of employment








C_2022424EN.01000901.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — LB v TO
(Case C-120/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - Allowance in lieu of leave not taken after the termination of the employment relationship - Three-year limitation period - Starting point - Adequate information provided to the worker)
(2022/C 424/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: LB

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TO

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the right to paid annual leave acquired by a worker in respect of a given reference period is time-barred after a period of three years which begins to run at the end of the year in which that right arose, where the employer has not actually put the worker in a position to exercise that right.


(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case C-538/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v W AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Articles 49 and 54 TFEU — Deduction of final losses incurred by a non-resident permanent establishment — State which has waived its power to impose taxes under a double taxation convention — Comparability of situations)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: double taxation, establishment, loss, profit, right of establishment, tax law, tax relief, taxable income








C_2022424EN.01000601.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/6






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v W AG
(Case C-538/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Deduction of final losses incurred by a non-resident permanent establishment - State which has waived its power to impose taxes under a double taxation convention - Comparability of situations)
(2022/C 424/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt B

Defendant: W AG

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a tax system of a Member State under which a company resident in that Member State may not deduct from its taxable profits the final losses incurred by its permanent establishment situated in another Member State where the Member State of residence has waived its power to tax the profits of that permanent establishment under a double taxation convention.


(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case T-590/22: Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Cristescu v Commission
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, pay scale, principle of proportionality, promotion, rights of the defence








C_2022424EN.01005001.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/50






Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Cristescu v Commission
(Case T-590/22)
(2022/C 424/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of 17 November 2021 which imposed on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a period of six months;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs and to pay one euro to the applicant.





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 manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful. He relies, in that regard, on the fact that the alleged misconduct on which the contested decision is based has not been established and that that is apparent, inter alia, from the unanimous opinion given by the Disciplinary Board.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicant relies, in particular, on the right to be heard, in so far as the members of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC), to whom the powers of the appointing authority (‘the Appointing Authority’) were delegated during the procedure and who drafted the inquiry report, the conclusions of which were questioned by the Disciplinary Board, then played a decisive role in the adoption of the decision taken, in a non-transparent way, by the Appointing Authority.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Case T-587/22: Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Crown Holdings and Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, cartel, competition policy, metal product, packaging product, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2022424EN.01004701.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/47






Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Crown Holdings and Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-587/22)
(2022/C 424/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Crown Holdings, Inc. (Yardley, Pennsylvania, United States), Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland Holdings GmbH (Seesen, Germany) (represented by: A. Burnside, C. Graf York von Wartenburg, A. Kidane and D. Strohl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul European Commission Decision C(2022) 4761 final of 12 July 2022 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40.522 — Metal Packaging) insofar as it applies to the applicants; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, a general principle of EU law, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the German Federal Cartel Office (‘FCO’) thereby departing from established rules of practice as set out in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO, violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations that it would comply with established rules of practice.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case at such a late stage of the FCO’s proceedings, violated the principle of subsidiarity.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO several years after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period, failed to appropriately balance the objectives of competition law enforcement and those of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and the applicants’ rights of defence, thus breaching the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the FCO after the expiry of the two-month initial allocation period, infringed the principle of good administration.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 21 September 2022 2022/C 363/05
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022363EN.01000501.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 September 2022
(2022/C 363/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


0,9906 




JPY


Japanese yen


142,66 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87335 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9214 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9549 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2858 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,637 




HUF


Hungarian forint


405,10 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7505 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9443 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,1490 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4851 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3262 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,7761 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6844 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4006 




KRW


South Korean won


1 381,38 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4879 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9821 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5205 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 866,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5097 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,285 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,786 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,0924 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,7847 




INR


Indian rupee


79,1555 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2022/C 363/07
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, financial loss








C_2022363EN.01000701.xml










22.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/7






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2022/C 363/07)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


20 June 2022




Case No


88849




Decision No


151/22/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Temporary Crisis Framework: aid scheme for undertakings that suffer loss of revenue




Legal basis


The Parliamentary decision authorizing the scheme and its budget as set out in Innst. 270 S (2021-2022), Prop. 78 S (2021-2022), Innst. 450S (2021-2022), and the regulations from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway.




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective








(1)


To support Norwegian undertakings that achieved a significant part of their turnover from customers based in Russia, Belarus and/or Ukraine before the military aggression against Ukraine by Russia took place and the sanctions were imposed by Norway, the EU, and its international partners, and that suffer a loss of revenue from such customers, in order to secure jobs and allow those undertakings to adapt their businesses to other customers.








Form of aid


Direct grants




Budget


NOK 55 million




Intensity


The grants can cover up to between 80-100 % of the defined eligible costs.




Duration


21 June 2022 until 31 December 2022




Economic sectors


All sectors




Name and address of the granting authority


Postal address:





Innovation Norway




Post box 448, Sentrum,




N- 0104 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/
Case T-592/22: Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Liquid Advertising v EUIPO — Liqui.do (Liquid+Arcade)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022424EN.01005101.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/51






Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Liquid Advertising v EUIPO — Liqui.do (Liquid+Arcade)
(Case T-592/22)
(2022/C 424/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Liquid Advertising, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States) (represented by: M. Czarnecki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liqui.do SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Liquid+Arcade’ — Application No 18 317 971

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 2231/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in their entirety, the contested decision and the decision of EUIPO’s Opposition Division of 12 November 2021 or, in the alternative, amend the contested decision by upholding the appeal lodged by the applicant;










—


make an appropriate order as to costs in the applicant’s favour.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-497/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — SI and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Application for international protection — Grounds for inadmissibility — Article 2(q) — Concept of ‘subsequent application’ — Article 33(2)(d) — Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible on account of the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in the Kingdom of Denmark — Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Denmark)
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, EU migration policy, area of freedom, security and justice, border control, international protection, right of asylum








C_2022424EN.01001401.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/14






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — SI and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-497/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Application for international protection - Grounds for inadmissibility - Article 2(q) - Concept of ‘subsequent application’ - Article 33(2)(d) - Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible on account of the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in the Kingdom of Denmark - Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Denmark)
(2022/C 424/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty,
must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State.


(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.