do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-530/22, Dunaj-Finanse: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o. v KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Rail transport — Passengers’ rights and obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 — Article 3(8) — Transport contract — Concept — Passenger without a ticket at the time of boarding a train — Consumer protection)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract of carriage, passenger rights, rail transport, ticket








C_2023164EN.01002601.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/26






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o. v KG
(Case C-530/22, (1) Dunaj-Finanse)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Rail transport - Passengers’ rights and obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Article 3(8) - Transport contract - Concept - Passenger without a ticket at the time of boarding a train - Consumer protection)
(2023/C 164/32)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o.

Defendant: KG

Operative part of the order

Article 3(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) and (2) of Appendix A in Annex I to that regulation
must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no transport contract is concluded between a carrier and a passenger who boards a freely accessible train without the intention of purchasing a ticket.


(1)  Date lodged: 9.8.2022.
Case T-615/22: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2023 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Final dismissal of the application for registration of the trade mark in parallel opposition proceedings — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2023164EN.01004201.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/42






Order of the General Court of 16 February 2023 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)
(Case T-615/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Final dismissal of the application for registration of the trade mark in parallel opposition proceedings - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2023/C 164/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz and C. Milbradt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cemet Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Cyprus seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2022 (Case R 121/2022-5).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The Republic of Cyprus and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 432, 14.11.2022.
Case C-635/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules on languages — Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators’ functions as investigators and team leaders — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Article 1d(1) — Difference in treatment based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ — Judicial review — Standard of proof required)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), judicial review, language skills, linguistic discrimination, official language, proof, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023127EN.01000301.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/3






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-635/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules on languages - Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators’ functions as investigators and team leaders - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Article 1d(1) - Difference in treatment based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ - Judicial review - Standard of proof required)
(2023/C 127/03)
Languages of the case: Spanish and Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, T. Lilamand, D. Milanowska and N. Ruiz García, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Case T-77/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Jaw de Croon v CPVO — Belgicactus (Belsemred1)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_2023121EN.01001302.xml










3.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/13






Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Jaw de Croon v CPVO — Belgicactus (Belsemred1)
(Case T-77/23)
(2023/C 121/18)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Jaw de Croon Holding BV (Apeldoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Overdijk, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Belgicactus BVBA (Westerlo, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO


Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right Belsemred1

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 16 December 2022 in Case A024/2021

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul or set aside the contested decision;










—


order the CPVO to declare the Community Plant Variety Right granted to ‘Belsemred1’ null and void; or alternatively, order the CPVO to undertake further evidence taking on issues to be identified by the General Court;










—


Order the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay and/or reimburse the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Appellant in accordance with applicable rules.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements;










—


Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council or any rule of law relating to their application, including the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Case C-623/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules on languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Article 1d(1) — Difference in treatment based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ — Judicial review — Standard of proof required)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, audit, competition (EU), judicial review, language skills, linguistic discrimination, official language, recruitment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023127EN.01000201.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/2






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-623/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules on languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Article 1d(1) - Difference in treatment based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ - Judicial review - Standard of proof required)
(2023/C 127/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Italian Republic;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Case C-824/21 P: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity, right of action, right to justice








C_2023216EN.01003702.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/37






Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-824/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 216/47)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 15 February 2023 2023/C 57/03
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023057EN.01000401.xml










16.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 February 2023
(2023/C 57/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0700 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,05 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4515 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88825 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1400 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9885 




ISK


Iceland króna


153,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9193 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,666 




HUF


Hungarian forint


380,58 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7600 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9008 




TRY


Turkish lira


20,1677 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5529 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4356 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3983 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7063 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4285 




KRW


South Korean won


1 374,34 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2891 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3229 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 320,55 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7000 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,075 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,771 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5860 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9732 




INR


Indian rupee


88,6415 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10990 – WESTCOAST / KOMSA) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 57/09
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: computer equipment, distributor, economic concentration, electronics industry, logistics, marketing, merger control, provision of services, software, telecommunications








C_2023057EN.01002501.xml










16.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10990 – WESTCOAST / KOMSA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 57/09)

1.   
On 9 February 2023, 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:






—


Westcoast (Holdings) Limited (‘Westcoast’, United Kingdom), belonging to Westcoast Group Holdings Limited (‘Westcoast Group’),










—


KOMSA AG (‘KOMSA’, Germany), controlled by DEROSSI Invest GmbH, Germany.










—


Westcoast will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of KOMSA.




The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


Westcoast is an international distributor of IT and telecommunications software and hardware products, consumer electronics and a provider of related business, logistics and marketing services,










—


KOMSA is an international distributor of IT and telecommunications software and hardware products and consumer electronics. In particular, it distributes smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, a variety of accessories, phone systems, headsets, smart home systems and e-mobility products.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10990 – WESTCOAST / KOMSA
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-519/21, DGRFP Cluj: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — ASA v DGRFP Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Construction of a building complex by an association without legal personality — Association contract — Sale of the apartments of that building complex by certain members — Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, association, building, legal status, real property, sale, tax relief, taxpayer, transfer of property








C_2023127EN.01000901.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/9






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — ASA v DGRFP Cluj
(Case C-519/21, (1) DGRFP Cluj)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Construction of a building complex by an association without legal personality - Association contract - Sale of the apartments of that building complex by certain members - Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Right to deduct VAT)
(2023/C 127/10)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ASA

Defendant: DGRFP Cluj

Joined parties: BP, MB

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
must be interpreted as meaning that the parties to a contract relating to an association without legal personality, which was not registered with the competent tax authorities before the economic activity concerned commenced, cannot be regarded as ‘taxable persons’ along with the taxable person which is liable for tax on the taxable transaction.










2.


Directive 2006/112, the principle of proportionality and the principle of fiscal neutrality
must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person, where it does not hold an invoice issued in its name, must be granted the right to deduct the input value added tax paid by another party to an association without legal personality with a view to carrying out that association’s economic activity, even if the taxable person is liable in respect of that activity, where there is no objective evidence that the goods and services at issue in the main proceedings were actually provided as inputs by taxable persons for the purposes of its own transactions subject to value added tax.






(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Case C-780/21 P: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Spain, equal treatment, judgment of the Court (EU), judicial review, primacy of EU law, right to justice, ruling








C_2023216EN.01003701.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/37






Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 16 February 2023 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament, intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-780/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 216/46)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Case T-49/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, custody, damages, disciplinary proceedings, family benefit, pension scheme, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023127EN.01004701.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/47






Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament
(Case T-49/23)
(2023/C 127/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Parliament’s decision of 15 July 2022 relating to a disciplinary penalty;










—


withdraw that decision from the applicant’s personal file;










—


reimburse to the applicant the sums deducted on that basis from his retirement pension, together with default interest as from the date of the first deduction;










—


order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 50 000 for the serious non-material and financial damage caused, including impairment of the peace of the applicant’s family life while at the same time he has to support his wife who suffers from a serious illness;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.





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 infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits that his son, who has reached his majority, was not entrusted to the care of his mother by a competent authority or pursuant to a legislative provision. Therefore, the applicant maintains that the Parliament was required to continue paying him the dependent child allowance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(a) and (b) of Conclusion No 274/15 of the Heads of Administration. The applicant submits that, pursuant to the abovementioned provisions, the Parliament should have presumed that his son was the subject of actual maintenance, and should not have required proof of actual maintenance.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the penalty against him and that the Secretary-General of the Parliament showed a manifest lack of impartiality.