do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-641/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Y v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial risk, pension fund, tax exemption








C_2023035EN.01002601.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Y v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
(Case C-641/22)
(2023/C 35/30)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Y

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:






—


whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?










—


what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?










—


to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?










—


that the employer has guaranteed for the period 2014 to 2020 up to an amount of €250 000 000 in order to achieve the targeted pension accrual?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10852 – 3D SYSTEMS / DUSSUR / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 404/03
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: 3D printing, Saudi Arabia, adjuvant, economic concentration, investment company, joint venture, merger control, parent company, provision of services








C_2022404EN.01000601.xml










20.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10852 – 3D SYSTEMS / DUSSUR / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 404/03)
On 12 October 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 32022M10852. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-461/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark C2 — Earlier national figurative mark C8 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Interdependence of factors — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, educational institution, gaming establishment, hotel industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2022472EN.01003701.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/37






Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)
(Case T-461/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark C2 - Earlier national figurative mark C8 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Interdependence of factors - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 472/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Hamel and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot and C. Cuny, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 909/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 909/2020-2) in so far as it relates to services for which only a low degree of similarity was found;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd, EUIPO and C8 to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Case T-656/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Earlier EU figurative mark HCapital — Relative ground for refusal — Relevant public — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, financial services, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022463EN.01003901.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/39






Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)
(Case T-656/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS - Earlier EU figurative mark HCapital - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 463/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and N. Schmitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: V. Stilwell de Andrade, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2021 (Case R 1954/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders H/2 Credit Manager LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Case T-502/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB (Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions — Early intervention measures — Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration — Action for annulment — Action brought by a shareholder — Standing to bring proceedings — Interest separate from that of the bank — Admissibility — Error of law in the determination of the legal basis — Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law — Limit — Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem)
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, admissibility, bank, banking supervision, decision-making body (EU), financial supervision, national law, ownership, protection of shareholders, right of action








C_2022463EN.01002202.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/22






Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB
(Case T-502/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Early intervention measures - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Action for annulment - Action brought by a shareholder - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest separate from that of the bank - Admissibility - Error of law in the determination of the legal basis - Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law - Limit - Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem)
(2022/C 463/30)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Triantafyllou and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration, as well as of any consequent or subsequent act, including, inter alia, ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the duration of the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Francesca Corneli;










4.


Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case C-642/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial risk, pension fund, tax exemption








C_2023035EN.01002602.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht
(Case C-642/22)
(2023/C 35/31)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:






—


whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?










—


what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?










—


to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Joined Cases C-650/20 and C-651/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — R1, R2 (C-650/20) v O1, O2 (C-650/20) and C (C-651/20) v T, O (C-651/20) (Removal from the register)
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance company, insurance contract, provision of services








C_2023024EN.01001501.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/15






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — R1, R2 (C-650/20) v O1, O2 (C-650/20) and C (C-651/20) v T, O (C-651/20)
(Joined Cases C-650/20 and C-651/20) (1)

(Removal from the register)
(2023/C 24/20)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: R1, R2 (C-650/20), C (C-651/20)

Defendants: O1, O2 (C-650/20), T, O (C-651/20)

Operative part of the order

Joined Cases C-650/20 and C-651/20 are removed from the register of the Court.


(1)  Date lodged: 30.11.20.
Case T-636/22: Action brought on 12 October 2022 — U. I. Lapp v EUIPO — Labkable Asia (Labkable Solutions for cables)
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric cable, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022451EN.01002102.xml










28.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/21






Action brought on 12 October 2022 — U. I. Lapp v EUIPO — Labkable Asia (Labkable Solutions for cables)
(Case T-636/22)
(2022/C 451/26)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: U. I. Lapp GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: R. Ingerl and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Labkable Asia Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Labkable Solutions for cables — Application for registration No 18 123 696

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2022 in Case R 1894/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision so that the appeal filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is dismissed;










—


alternatively, annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-640/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Fiscale Eenheid Achmea BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial risk, pension fund, tax exemption








C_2023035EN.01002501.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Fiscale Eenheid Achmea BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
(Case C-640/22)
(2023/C 35/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fiscale Eenheid Achmea BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:






—


whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?










—


what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?










—


to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?










—


that the pension fund has no active accrual from 1 January 2018 and is obliged to proceed with a collective value transfer to an insurer or another pension fund because of the low policy coverage ratio?














2.


Does the principle of tax neutrality require that, for the application of Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive, in the case of funds which are not UCITS, (2) it must be assessed not only whether they are comparable to UCITS but also whether, from the perspective of the average consumer, they are comparable to other funds that are not UCITS funds but are regarded by the Member State as special investment funds?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities.
Case T-460/21: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS — Earlier national figurative mark C8 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Interdependence of factors — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, educational institution, gaming establishment, hotel industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2022472EN.01003602.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/36






Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)
(Case T-460/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS - Earlier national figurative mark C8 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Interdependence of factors - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 472/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Hamel and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot and C. Cuny, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2) in so far as it relates to services for which only a low degree of similarity was found;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd, EUIPO and C8 to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Case C-644/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting Bedrijfstakpensioensfonds voor het levensmiddelenbedrijf (BPFL) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht
Date: 2022-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial risk, pension fund, tax exemption








C_2023035EN.01002801.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting Bedrijfstakpensioensfonds voor het levensmiddelenbedrijf (BPFL) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht
(Case C-644/22)
(2023/C 35/33)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stichting Bedrijfstakpensioensfonds voor het levensmiddelenbedrijf (BPFL)

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:






—


whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?










—


what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?










—


to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?














2.


Does the principle of tax neutrality require that, for the application of Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive, in the case of funds which are not UCITS, (2) it must be assessed not only whether they are comparable to UCITS but also whether, from the perspective of the average consumer, they are comparable to other funds that are not UCITS funds but are regarded by the Member State as special investment funds?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities.