do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-638/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd — Sweden) — MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 45 TFEU — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies in another Member State — Residence requirement — Alternative requirement of social integration for non-resident students — Situation of a student who is a national of the State granting the aid, residing since birth in the State of studies)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child of migrant, education grant, financial aid, foreign student, migrant worker, residence, return migration








C_2023024EN.01000401.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/4






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd — Sweden) — MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden
(Case C-638/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 45 TFEU - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies in another Member State - Residence requirement - Alternative requirement of social integration for non-resident students - Situation of a student who is a national of the State granting the aid, residing since birth in the State of studies)
(2023/C 24/04)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MCM

Defendant: Centrala studiestödsnämnden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union
must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not preclude legislation of a Member State by which the grant of financial aid for the pursuit of studies in the host Member State, to the child of a person who has left the host Member State in which that person worked in order to return to live in the first Member State, of which he or she is a national, is made subject to the requirement that the child have a connection with the Member State of origin, in a situation where, first, the child has lived since birth in the host Member State and, second, the Member State of origin makes other nationals not satisfying the residence requirement and who apply for such financial aid to study in another Member State subject to the requirement of the existence of a connection.


(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case C-302/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n° 4 de Castelló de la Plana — Spain) — Casilda v Banco Cetelem SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dispute in the main proceedings which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law, consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, primacy of EU law, principle of legal certainty, unfair terms of contract








C_2023024EN.01000901.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4 de Castelló de la Plana — Spain) — Casilda v Banco Cetelem SA
(Case C-302/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dispute in the main proceedings which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2023/C 24/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4 de Castelló de la Plana

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Casilda

Defendant: Banco Cetelem SA

Operative part of the judgment

It is not necessary to give a ruling on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4 de Castelló de la Plana (Court of First Instance, No 4, Castelló de la Plana, Spain) by decision of 7 May 2021.


(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Case C-596/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — A v Finanzamt M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduct input VAT — Principle of prohibition of fraud — Chain of supply — Refusal of the right to deduct in the case of fraud — Taxable person — Second purchaser of goods — Fraud affecting part of the VAT due in respect of the first purchase — Scope of the refusal of the right to deduction)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, purchase, supply chain, tax evasion, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2023024EN.01001102.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — A v Finanzamt M
(Case C-596/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduct input VAT - Principle of prohibition of fraud - Chain of supply - Refusal of the right to deduct in the case of fraud - Taxable person - Second purchaser of goods - Fraud affecting part of the VAT due in respect of the first purchase - Scope of the refusal of the right to deduction)
(2023/C 24/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: Finanzamt M

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in the light of the principle of the prohibition of fraud,
must be interpreted as meaning that the second purchaser of goods may be refused the benefit of deducting input value added tax (VAT) on the ground that he or she knew or ought to have been aware of the existence of VAT fraud committed by the original seller at the time of the first sale, even if the first purchaser was also aware of that fraud.










2.


Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2010/45/EU, read in the light of the principle of the prohibition of fraud,
must be interpreted as meaning that the second purchaser of goods which, at a stage prior to that purchase, were the subject of a fraudulent transaction relating to only part of the value added tax (VAT) which the State is entitled to collect must have the right to deduct the input VAT refused in its entirety where that second purchaser knew or ought to have known that that purchase was linked to fraud.






(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1860 of 10 June 2022 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the standards, formats, frequency and methods and arrangements for reporting (Official Journal of the European Union L 262 of 7 October 2022)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: application of EU law, archives, digital archiving, exchange of information, financial derivative, financial legislation, information storage, technical standard, trade information








L_2022304EN.01010201.xml










24.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 304/102







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1860 of 10 June 2022 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the standards, formats, frequency and methods and arrangements for reporting

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 262 of 7 October 2022
)


On page 71, in Article 4(1):
for:


                  ‘in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 14’,

read:


                  ‘in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 13’
Case C-730/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, free competition, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, game of chance, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, service concession, tendering








C_2023094EN.01001701.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
(Case C-730/22)
(2023/C 94/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Coral Srl

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Question referred

‘Does Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) where it is considered to be applicable and, in any event, the general principles deriving from Articles 26, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU as interpreted and applied by the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular in the light of the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality and the protection of competition and the free movement of services and capital, preclude the application of national rules under which the national legislature or the public administration may, during the so-called “technical extension” renewed several times in the last decade in the sector of gaming concessions, unilaterally affect ongoing relations, introducing the obligation to pay fees for the concessions, which were originally not due, and subsequently increasing the fees on several occasions, and always setting them as a fixed amount for all concessionaires irrespective of turnover, as well as imposing further constraints on the activities of concessionaires such as prohibiting the transfer of premises and making participation in the future procedure for the re-award of concessions subject to participation by the operators in the extension?’


(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).
Case C-658/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR) v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Article 1(1) — National legislation prohibiting individuals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use — Article 5(1) — Obligation on Member States to communicate to the European Commission any draft technical regulation)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: herbicide, market approval, pesticide, technical regulations, trade licence








C_2023024EN.01001201.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/12






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR) v Vlaams Gewest
(Case C-658/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Article 1(1) - National legislation prohibiting individuals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use - Article 5(1) - Obligation on Member States to communicate to the European Commission any draft technical regulation)
(2023/C 24/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR)

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, read in conjunction with Article 5 thereof
must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which prohibits persons who do not have a national authorisation intended for professionals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use is capable of constituting a ‘technical regulation’, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(d) and (f) of that directive, which must be communicated to the European Commission under Article 5 of that directive, in so far as the application of that national legislation may significantly influence the marketing of the products concerned, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10713 – RWE / NEWCO EEMSHAVEN) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 446/09
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Groningen, Netherlands, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, natural gas, power plant, renewable energy, solar architecture








C_2022446EN.01003501.xml










24.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 446/35






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10713 – RWE / NEWCO EEMSHAVEN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 446/09)

1.   
On 17 November 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


RWE AG (‘RWE’, Germany),










—


NewCo Eemshaven B.V. (‘NewCo Eemshaven’, The Netherlands), currently controlled by Vattenfall N.V. (The Netherlands).




RWE will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of NewCo Eemshaven.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


RWE is an energy company that focuses on electricity generation from renewable and conventional energy sources, and energy trading,










—


NewCo Eemshaven operates a gas-fired power plant, consisting of three combined cycle gas turbines, and an adjacent solar park located in Eemshaven, the Netherlands.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10713 – RWE / NEWCO EEMSHAVEN
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-763/19: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Ultra Electronics Holdings and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, group of companies, reimbursement of aid, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2023024EN.01008401.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/84






Order of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Ultra Electronics Holdings and Others v Commission
(Case T-763/19) (1)

(2023/C 24/112)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case C-289/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effective judicial protection — National procedural rule providing that an action seeking to dispute the compatibility of a national provision with EU law is devoid of purpose where the provision is repealed in the course of proceedings)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, amendment of a law, civil liability proceedings, energy efficiency, national implementing measure, right to justice








C_2023024EN.01000801.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/8






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad
(Case C-289/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - National procedural rule providing that an action seeking to dispute the compatibility of a national provision with EU law is devoid of purpose where the provision is repealed in the course of proceedings)
(2023/C 24/10)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IG

Defendant: Varhoven administrativen sad

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule of a Member State according to which, where a provision of domestic law challenged by an action for annulment on the ground that it is contrary to EU law is repealed and therefore ceases to have any effect for the future, the dispute is deemed to have become devoid of purpose with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, without the parties having first been able to assert any interest they may have in the continuation of the proceedings and without any account having been taken of any such interest.


(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Case T-764/19: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Keller Holdings v Commission
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, group of companies, reimbursement of aid, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2023024EN.01008402.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/84






Order of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Keller Holdings v Commission
(Case T-764/19) (1)

(2023/C 24/113)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case C-722/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 November 2022 — criminal proceedings
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, confiscation of property, criminal proceedings, excise duty, large vehicle, organised crime, tobacco industry








C_2023045EN.01001301.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 November 2022 — criminal proceedings
(Case C-722/22)
(2023/C 45/21)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 2 of Framework Decision 2005/212, (1) read in conjunction with the third indent of Article 1 thereof, to interpret a national law as meaning that a heavy goods vehicle (tractor unit and trailer) which members of an organised crime group used for the holding and transport of large quantities of excise goods (cigarettes) without tax markings should not be confiscated as an instrumentality?


(1)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).
Case T-116/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Belavia v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2022-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2023063EN.01005201.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/52






Order of the President of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Belavia v Council
(Case T-116/22 R)
(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
(2023/C 63/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Belavia — Belarusian Airlines AAT (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Boggio-Tomasaz and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, the suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 430 I, p. 16) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 430 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.