do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-666/22: Action brought on 2 November 2022 — United Shipping Group v EUIPO — Baulies Gómez (UNITED WIND LOGISTICS)
Date: 2022-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, carrier, chartering, logistics, maritime transport, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022472EN.01004902.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 472/49






Action brought on 2 November 2022 — United Shipping Group v EUIPO — Baulies Gómez (UNITED WIND LOGISTICS)
(Case T-666/22)
(2022/C 472/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: United Shipping Group GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bornholdt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pablo Baulies Gómez (Rocafort, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UNITED WIND LOGISTICS in the colours blue and black — International registration designating the European Union No 1 531 891

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2022 in Case R 134/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


vary the contested decision to find that the appeal is well-founded, annul decision No B3 131 303 of the Opposition Division of 30 November 2021, and reject the opposition to the designation of the European Union in international registration No 1 531 891;










—


order EUIPO 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 C-682/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 2 November 2022 — LM v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak
Date: 2022-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Albania, Croatia, EU national, financial aid, framework agreement, pre-accession aid, remuneration of work, self-employed person, tax on profits of self-employment








C_2023035EN.01003401.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 2 November 2022 — LM v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak
(Case C-682/22)
(2023/C 35/40)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LM

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Question referred

Must Article 26(2)(c) of the Framework Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Albania and the Commission of the European Communities on the rules for cooperation concerning European Community financial assistance to the Republic of Albania in the framework of the implementation of the assistance under the instrument for pre-accession assistance, signed on 18 October 2007, be interpreted as excluding the power of a Member State, in this case the Republic of Croatia, to charge income tax on the remuneration which was paid in 2016 to one of its nationals, employed as a long-term expert, for tasks carried out in the territory of Albania concerning a project whose beneficiaries are State institutions of the Republic of Albania and which is financed by the European Union under the 2013 instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA)?
Case C-676/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2022 — B2 Energy s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
Date: 2022-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, judgment of the Court (EU), supplier, supply, tax authorities, tax exemption, tax offence, taxpayer








C_2023045EN.01000702.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2022 — B2 Energy s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-676/22)
(2023/C 45/13)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B2 Energy s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Must Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 December 2021 in Case C-154/20, Kemwater ProChemie, EU:C:2021:989, such that a claim for exemption from value added tax (VAT) upon the supply of goods to another EU Member State must be denied, without the tax authorities needing to prove that the supplier of the goods was involved in VAT fraud, if the supplier has failed to prove supply of goods to a specific recipient indicated in the tax documents and having the status of a taxable person in the other Member State, even though, with a view to the facts of the case and the information provided by the taxable person, there is data available to verify that the actual recipient in the other EU Member State did indeed have that status?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-677/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 2 November 2022 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A. v P. S.A.
Date: 2022-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: commercial contract, commercial transaction, deadline for payment








C_2023035EN.01003301.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 2 November 2022 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A. v P. S.A.
(Case C-677/22)
(2023/C 35/38)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A.

Defendant: P. S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 3(5) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (1) be interpreted as meaning that a period for payment longer than 60 days may be expressly stipulated by undertakings only in contracts in which the contractual terms are not determined unilaterally by one of the contracting parties?


(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
Case C-675/22: Action brought on 2 November 2022 — Republic of Poland v Council of the European Union
Date: 2022-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU energy policy, available energy resources, energy consumption, energy demand, energy saving, gas supply, legal basis, natural gas, principle of legal certainty, security of supply








C_2023007EN.01001801.xml










9.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/18






Action brought on 2 November 2022 — Republic of Poland v Council of the European Union
(Case C-675/22)
(2023/C 7/22)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1369 of 5 August 2022 on coordinated demand-reduction measures for gas (1) in its entirety;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;










—


in the alternative, should the Court find that the legal basis of the contested regulation is correct, annul Article 5(1) and (2) of the contested regulation.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland raises the following pleas in respect of the contested regulation:






1.


Plea alleging that the legal basis for the adoption of the regulation was incorrect and, consequently, that Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 194(2) thereof, was infringed in so far as the contested regulation was not adopted on the basis of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, which requires the Council to act unanimously, despite the fact that that regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.
In respect of the contested regulation, Poland raises, first, the plea that its legal basis, namely Article 122(1) TFEU, is incorrect. Poland submits that the main objective of the contested regulation is to have a significant effect on the conditions for exploiting energy resources, the choice between different energy sources and the general structure of a Member State’s energy supply. Since that regulation significantly affects the freedom to shape the energy mix, it should have been adopted on the basis of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, to which the second subparagraph of Article 194(2) TFEU refers, that is to say, in accordance with a special legislative procedure under which the Council acts unanimously.










2.


Plea alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty by conferring on the EU institutions a discretionary power with regard to the triggering of a Union alert and by failing to explain how the measures contained in the regulation are intended to achieve its objectives.










3.


Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity.






(1)  OJ 2022 L 206, p. 1.