do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-307/23, G GmbH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs duties, customs territory (EU), customs valuation, electronic document, import (EU), labelling








C_2023261EN.01001501.xml










24.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H
(Case C-307/23, G GmbH)
(2023/C 261/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: G GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt H

Question referred

Must the cost of production, in the customs territory of the European Union, of printing templates for labels be added to the transaction value under Article 32(1)(a)(ii) or Article 32(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Code (1) if the buyer established in the customs territory of the European Union makes the printing templates available free of charge in electronic form to the suppliers in the third country?


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
Case C-176/22, BK and ZhP (Partial stay of the main proceedings): Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against BK, ZhP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Article 23, first paragraph — Stay of the main proceedings by a national court which has submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU — Possibility of a partial stay of proceedings)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial proceedings, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2023235EN.01000402.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/4






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against BK, ZhP
(Case C-176/22, (1) BK and ZhP (Partial stay of the main proceedings))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Article 23, first paragraph - Stay of the main proceedings by a national court which has submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU - Possibility of a partial stay of proceedings)
(2023/C 235/05)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

BK, ZhP

intervening parties: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding a national court which has made a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from staying the main proceedings only with regard to the aspects of those proceedings that are likely to be affected by the Court’s response to that request.


(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Case T-177/22: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Chambers and Others v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Members of the contract staff — Reimbursement of expenses — Travel expenses — Consequences of the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Place of origin located in a third country — Withdrawal of entitlement to annual flat-rate payment for travel expenses — Error of assessment — Equal treatment)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, expatriate worker, pay, servant (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2023235EN.01003502.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/35






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Chambers and Others v Commission
(Case T-177/22) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Members of the contract staff - Reimbursement of expenses - Travel expenses - Consequences of the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Place of origin located in a third country - Withdrawal of entitlement to annual flat-rate payment for travel expenses - Error of assessment - Equal treatment)
(2023/C 235/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Alexander Chambers (Barcelona, Spain), and the nine other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of their pay slips for June 2021, in so far as those pay slips support a finding that, following the departure of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union (or ‘Brexit’), they were no longer eligible for the annual flat-rate payment corresponding to the cost of travel from the place of employment to the place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Alexander Chambers and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.
Case T-322/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01003002.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/30






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission
(Case T-322/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 235/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast and H. Löschan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by F. Haus and F. Schmidt, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019, declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-321/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — enercity v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No locus standi — No active participation — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01003001.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/30






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — enercity v Commission
(Case T-321/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No locus standi - No active participation - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 235/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: enercity AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast and H. Löschan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by F. Haus and F. Schmidt, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders enercity AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-318/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Lack of standing — Lack of active participation — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01002801.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/28






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission
(Case T-318/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Lack of standing - Lack of active participation - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 235/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG.










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Case T-269/23: Action brought on 17 May 2023 — AirDoctor v EUIPO (AMAZING AIR)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air quality, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023235EN.01007101.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/71






Action brought on 17 May 2023 — AirDoctor v EUIPO (AMAZING AIR)
(Case T-269/23)
(2023/C 235/84)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AirDoctor LLC (Sherman Oaks, California, United States) (represented by: K. Rantala, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AMAZING AIR — Application for registration No 18 716 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2023 in Case R 2299/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-317/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Definition of ‘single concentration’ — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to be heard — Definition of the market — Analysis period — Analysis of market power — Decisive influence — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty of care)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01002701.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/27






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission
(Case T-317/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Definition of ‘single concentration’ - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to be heard - Definition of the market - Analysis period - Analysis of market power - Decisive influence - Manifest errors of assessment - Duty of care)
(2023/C 235/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019, declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Case T-480/22: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Panicongelados-Massas Congeladas v EUIPO — Seder (panidor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark panidor — Earlier national word mark ANIDOR — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bread, confectionery, confectionery product, pastry-making, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023235EN.01003602.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/36






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Panicongelados-Massas Congeladas v EUIPO — Seder (panidor)
(Case T-480/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark panidor - Earlier national word mark ANIDOR - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 235/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Panicongelados-Massas Congeladas, SA (Leiria, Portugal) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Ringelhann and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Seder Establishment Limited (Mriehel Birkirkara, Malta)

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 11 May 2022 (Case R 1946/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.
Case C-97/22, DC (Withdrawal after performance of the contract): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen — Germany) — DC v HJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 14(4)(a)(i) and (5) — Right of withdrawal for off-premises contracts — Information requirements for the trader concerned — Failure of that trader to inform the consumer — Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal — Withdrawal after the performance of the contract — Consequences)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, payment, termination of a contract








C_2023235EN.01000301.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/3






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen — Germany) — DC v HJ
(Case C-97/22, (1) DC (Withdrawal after performance of the contract))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 14(4)(a)(i) and (5) - Right of withdrawal for off-premises contracts - Information requirements for the trader concerned - Failure of that trader to inform the consumer - Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal - Withdrawal after the performance of the contract - Consequences)
(2023/C 235/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Essen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DC

Defendant: HJ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(4)(a)(i) and (5) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
must be interpreted as meaning that it exempts a consumer from any obligation to pay for performance provided pursuant to an off-premises contract, where the trader concerned did not provide him or her with the information referred to in Article 14(4)(a)(i) of that directive and that consumer exercised his or her right of withdrawal after the performance of that contract.


(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.
Case T-314/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No standing to bring proceedings — No active participation — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01002501.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/25






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland v Commission
(Case T-314/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No standing to bring proceedings - No active participation - Inadmissibility)
(2023/C 235/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH, formerly GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH (Hamelin, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019, declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.