do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-99/22, Kapniki A. Michailidis: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapniki A. Michailidis AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 — Article 3(3) — Validity — Common organisation of the markets — Raw tobacco — Premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco — Reduction of those premiums according to the quantity of tobacco of low class, category or quality purchased — Principles of non-retroactivity and of the protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, farm prices, fixing of prices, harvest, quality control of agricultural products, retroactivity of a law, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2023216EN.01002001.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/20






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapniki A. Michailidis AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon
(Case C-99/22, (1) Kapniki A. Michailidis)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 - Article 3(3) - Validity - Common organisation of the markets - Raw tobacco - Premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco - Reduction of those premiums according to the quantity of tobacco of low class, category or quality purchased - Principles of non-retroactivity and of the protection of legitimate expectations)
(2023/C 216/26)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Kapniki A. Michailidis AE

Respondents: Organismos Pliromon kai Elenchou Koinotikon Enischiseon Prosanatolismou kai Engyiseon (OPEKEPE) and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing, for the 1992 harvest, the norm and intervention prices and the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, and the production areas, in the light of the principles of non-retroactivity of rules of law and of the protection of legitimate expectations.


(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Case T-233/23: Action brought on 4 May 2023 — Gutseriev v Council
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, protection of privacy








C_2023223EN.01003901.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/39






Action brought on 4 May 2023 — Gutseriev v Council
(Case T-233/23)
(2023/C 223/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, barristers and D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 20), insofar as they apply to the applicant (together, the ‘2023 Contested Acts’);










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the applicant, the 2023 Contested Acts;










—


order that the Council pays the applicant’s 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 that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in the contested measures is satisfied.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, property and freedom to conduct business.










3.


Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging illegality if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit.
Case C-97/21, MV — 98: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — MV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — Sofia v Glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Failure to issue a fiscal cash register receipt — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle ne bis in idem — Cumulation of administrative penalties of a criminal nature for the same act — Article 49(3) — Proportionality of penalties — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Scope of judicial review relating to the provisional enforcement of a penalty)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, enforcement of ruling, invoicing, judicial review, principle of proportionality, right to justice, tax offence








C_2023216EN.01000501.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — MV — 98 v Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — Sofia v Glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-97/21, (1) MV — 98)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Failure to issue a fiscal cash register receipt - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle ne bis in idem - Cumulation of administrative penalties of a criminal nature for the same act - Article 49(3) - Proportionality of penalties - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Scope of judicial review relating to the provisional enforcement of a penalty)
(2023/C 216/05)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MV — 98

Defendant: Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ — Sofia v Glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a financial penalty and a measure involving sealing of business premises may be imposed on a taxpayer for one and the same offence relating to a tax obligation at the end of separate and autonomous procedures, where those measures are liable to challenge before different courts and where that legislation does not ensure coordination of the procedures enabling the additional disadvantage associated with the cumulation of those measures to be reduced to what is strictly necessary and does not ensure that the severity of all penalties imposed is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence concerned.


(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Case C-287/23, Entain Services (Bulgaria): Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 May 2023 — ‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, Gibraltar, capital gains tax, equal treatment, free movement of capital, incorporation, nationality of legal persons, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2023252EN.01003301.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 May 2023 — ‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-287/23, Entain Services (Bulgaria))
(2023/C 252/36)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri sentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred







1.


Do national rules and national interpretative practice under which dividends distributed to companies resident in Gibraltar are taxed at source (whereas dividends distributed to companies resident in Bulgaria or in other Member States are exempt from withholding tax without those companies having to satisfy any requirement) constitute a discriminatory restriction on the freedom of establishment guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 49 and on the free movement of capital guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 63 TFEU?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is that discriminatory restriction compatible with EU law where the legislator, in enacting the relevant national legislation, has not set out any public policy, public security or public health reasons justifying the need to impose those restrictions in respect of the companies incorporated in Gibraltar?
Case C-100/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 77 — Pension — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of national pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions — Crediting of additional pensionable years — Article 2 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension calculation — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — The ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule — Request for reimbursement of the portion of the transferred pension rights not reflected in the EU pension amount — Unjust enrichment)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), subsistence level income, transfer of pension rights








C_2023216EN.01002101.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/21






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case C-100/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 77 - Pension - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer of national pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions - Crediting of additional pensionable years - Article 2 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension calculation - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - The ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule - Request for reimbursement of the portion of the transferred pension rights not reflected in the EU pension amount - Unjust enrichment)
(2023/C 216/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: KY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat, and N. Maes, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and A. Ysebaert, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders KY to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.
Case T-618/22: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2023 — Amazonen-Werke H. Dreyer v EUIPO — (Combination of the colours green and orange) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Mark consisting in a combination of the colours green and orange — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023223EN.01002802.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/28






Order of the General Court of 4 May 2023 — Amazonen-Werke H. Dreyer v EUIPO — (Combination of the colours green and orange)
(Case T-618/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Mark consisting in a combination of the colours green and orange - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2023/C 223/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Amazonen-Werke H. Dreyer SE & Co. KG (Hasbergen-Gaste, Germany) (represented by: C. Neuhierl, lawyer)

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

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 22 July 2022 (Case R 2006/2021-5).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 441, 21.11.2022.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/917 of 4 May 2023 correcting the Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, opt-out clause








L_2023119EN.01015901.xml










5.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 119/159








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2023/917
of 4 May 2023
         
correcting the Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(4) thereof,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid (1), and in particular Article 1(1), point (a), thereof,


After consulting the Advisory Committee on State aid,

Whereas:







(1)


The Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (2) contains an error in Article 2, point (103e) that affects the content of the definition of a ‘small mid-cap’ undertaking, and indirectly also the scope of all the provisions which use this term.












(2)


The Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(Does not concern the English language.)



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 May 2023.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1).
Case C-516/21, Finanzamt X (Permanently installed equipment and machinery): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt X v Y (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) — Exceptions to the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(l) — Letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery in the context of the leasing of an agricultural building)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, agricultural building, agricultural machinery, hiring, lease, machinery, tax exemption








C_2023216EN.01001001.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/10






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt X v Y
(Case C-516/21, (1) Finanzamt X (Permanently installed equipment and machinery))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) - Exceptions to the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(l) - Letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery in the context of the leasing of an agricultural building)
(2023/C 216/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt X

Defendant: Y

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(2), first subparagraph, point (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
must be interpreted as not applying to the letting of permanently installed equipment and machinery where that letting constitutes a supply ancillary to a principal supply of leasing a building, carried out under a leasing agreement concluded between the same parties and exempt under Article 135(1)(l) of that directive, and those supplies form a single economic supply.


(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11006 – ONE / MACQUARIE / YTI) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 185/01
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, international transport, investment company, maritime shipping, merger control








C_2023185EN.01000101.xml










26.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11006 – ONE / MACQUARIE / YTI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 185/01)
On 4 May 2023, 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 32023M11006. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 of 13 July 2021 on establishing the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1488 (Official Journal of the European Union L 256 of 19 July 2021)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, European undertaking, computer system, data processing, high-performance computing




L_2023116EN.01002901.xml










4.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 116/29







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 of 13 July 2021 on establishing the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1488

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 256 of 19 July 2021
)








1.


On page 21, Article 7(6), first sentence:




for:


‘6.   For the purpose of valuing the contributions referred to in points Article 15(3)(b) to (f) of the Statutes, …’,


read:


‘6.   For the purpose of valuing the contributions referred to in points Article 15(3)(b) to (g) of the Statutes, …’.








2.


On page 38, Annex, Article 3(3):




for:


‘3.   Provided that it contributes to the financing referred to in Article 15 of these Statutes (…), and that it accepts these Statutes, any legal entity that is not listed in Article 2(1)(c) of these Statutes …’,


read:


‘3.   Provided that it contributes to the financing referred to in Article 15 of these Statutes (…) and that it accepts these Statutes, any legal entity that is not listed in Article 2(1)(d) of these Statutes …’.








3.


On page 48, Annex, Article 15(3), point (g):




for:






‘(g)


in-kind contributions by the Private Members or their constituent entities and affiliated entities as defined in Article 9(7) of this Regulation.’,




read:






‘(g)


in-kind contributions by the Private Members or their constituent entities and affiliated entities as defined in Article 2, points (16) and (17) of this Regulation.’.