do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-391/22, Tüke Busz: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 7(2) and (3) — Differentiated rates of taxation according to the commercial or private use of gas oil — Concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’ — Gas oil used for the carriage of passengers by regular service — National legislation providing for the reimbursement of excise duty with the exception of gas oil consumed during journeys made for the purpose of maintaining or refuelling passenger vehicles)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, general mechanical engineering, transport regulations








C_202400519EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/519


8.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-391/22, (1) Tüke Busz)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 7(2) and (3) - Differentiated rates of taxation according to the commercial or private use of gas oil - Concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’ - Gas oil used for the carriage of passengers by regular service - National legislation providing for the reimbursement of excise duty with the exception of gas oil consumed during journeys made for the purpose of maintaining or refuelling passenger vehicles)
(C/2024/519)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that gas oil consumed during journeys made for the repair, maintenance or refuelling of vehicles used for passenger transport does not fall within the concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/519/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-203/22: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2023 — Netherlands v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Undue payment — Letter of the Commission refusing the request for revision of its letter rejecting the request to extend the eight-year period for recovery — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGF, admissibility, aid to agriculture, deadline for payment, eligibility criteria, reimbursement of aid








C_202400742EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/742


22.1.2024





Order of the General Court of 16 November 2023 — Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-203/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - EAGF - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Undue payment - Letter of the Commission refusing the request for revision of its letter rejecting the request to extend the eight-year period for recovery - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(C/2024/742)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and M. ter Haar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of the Netherlands seeks annulment of the letter bearing reference Ares(2022) 1097097 which the European Commission sent it on 15 February 2022, refusing the request for revision of the letter of 6 January 2022 rejecting the request of that Member State to extend by a period of four years the eight-year period prescribed for the recovery of the payments unduly made to Telerscoöperatie FresQ U. A. under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/742/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-686/23 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by the Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-748/20, Commission v CEVA and Others
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, European Anti-fraud Office, claim, contract, eligibility criteria, limitation of legal proceedings, project funding, research programme








C_202400536EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/536


8.1.2024





Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by the Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-748/20, Commission v CEVA and Others
(Case C-686/23 P)
(C/2024/536)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Centre d’etude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (represented by: A. Raccah, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, SELARL AJIRE, SELARL TCA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of 6 September 2023 in Case T-748/20 European Commission v CEVA and Others;










—


Order the European Union to pay CEVA the sum of EUR 30 000 for legal costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal the appellant relies on two grounds.
The first ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court committed errors of law in the application of the limitation rules for a claim. Specifically, the General Court held that the start of the limitation period corresponded to the time when the debit notes were issued and therefore that the moment at which time started to run corresponded to the date of performance of the contract.
According to the appellant, the General Court could not rely on an interruption of the running of the limitation period and as a result the claim at issue was time-barred.
The second ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration of justice in so far as the General Court relied only on an imprecise reading of the evidence, namely of the OLAF report. In absence of a precise characterisation in the OLAF report, the appellant claims that neither the Commission nor the General Court could acknowledge that it had committed financial irregularities in the performance of the SEAPURA contract.
Moreover, the appellant claims that the General Court could not compel it to repay the funding received in the absence of a conviction against it. The appellant criticises the General Court’s analysis according to which the Commission is able to rely, before the EU judicature, on proceedings commenced in France, on the basis of French law, since the contract in question is based only on Belgian law and confers exclusive jurisdiction to the General Court of the European Union.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/536/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-360/22: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Free movement of workers — Freedom to provide services — Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU — Articles 28, 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Transfer of the value of pension rights — Supplementary pension accumulated via the employer — Cross-border situation)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European Economic Area, free movement of capital, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, infringement of EU law, pension fund, supplementary pension, tax on income, transfer of pension rights








C_202400517EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/517


8.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-360/22) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Free movement of workers - Freedom to provide services - Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU - Articles 28, 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Transfer of the value of pension rights - Supplementary pension accumulated via the employer - Cross-border situation)
(C/2024/517)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, P.P. Huurnink, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force the requirements in the area of transfer of pension capital provided for in Article 85(1)(b) and Article 87(2)(f) of the Pensioenwet (Law on pensions), read in combination with Article 19b(2) of the Wet op de loonbelasting 1964 (Law on wages tax 1964), in the version applicable to the present action, by virtue of which a transfer of the value of pension rights to a pension insurance organisation situated in a Member State other than the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not taxable only if the possibilities of redeeming those rights in the form of capital are identical to those provided for by Netherlands law, or stricter than the latter, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 318, 22.8.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/517/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Annual report on EU Joint Undertakings for the 2022 financial year
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, activity report, administration of the Institutions, audit, auditing, budgetary control, financial control








C_202301025EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1025


16.11.2023






Annual report on EU Joint Undertakings for the 2022 financial year
(C/2023/1025)

The European Court of Auditors will publish its annual report for the 2022 financial year on EU Joint Undertakings, together with their replies, on 14 November 2023.
The report can be consulted directly or downloaded, from 17:00 on 14 November 2023, at the European Court of Auditors’ website:






 


https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SAR-JUS-2022






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1025/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Joined Cases C-583/21 to C-586/21, NC and Others (Transfer of a Spanish notary’s office): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — NC (C-583/21), JD (C-584/21), TA (C-585/21), FZ (C-586/21) v BA, DA, DV, CG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses — Transfer of a notarial practice — Declaration as to the nullity or unfairness of the dismissal of employees — Determination of seniority for the calculation of compensation — Applicability of the directive — Conditions)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, labour relations, notary, seniority, severance pay, transfer of businesses, unfair dismissal, working time








C_202400510EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/510


8.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — NC (C-583/21), JD (C-584/21), TA (C-585/21), FZ (C-586/21) v BA, DA, DV, CG
(Joined Cases C-583/21 to C-586/21, (1) NC and Others (Transfer of a Spanish notary’s office))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - Transfer of a notarial practice - Declaration as to the nullity or unfairness of the dismissal of employees - Determination of seniority for the calculation of compensation - Applicability of the directive - Conditions)
(C/2024/510)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: NC (C-583/21), JD (C-584/21), TA (C-585/21), FZ (C-586/21)

Defendants: BA, DA, DV, CG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is applicable to a situation in which a notary, who is a public official and the private-sector employer of the employees posted to his or her practice, succeeds the previous holder of such a practice, takes over his or her records and an essential part of the staff who were employed by him or her and continues to carry out the same activity on the same premises with the same material resources, provided that the identity of that practice is retained, which it is for the referring court to determine, taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances.


(1)  
            OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/510/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-773/21 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 — AV, AW v European Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Downgrading — Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Parallel national criminal proceedings — Power of attorney — Proportionality of the disciplinary penalty — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: assistant, demotion, disciplinary proceedings, evidence, interpretation of the law, rights of the defence








C_202401074EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1074


5.2.2024





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 — AV, AW v European Parliament
(Case C-773/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Downgrading - Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Parallel national criminal proceedings - Power of attorney - Proportionality of the disciplinary penalty - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
(C/2024/1074)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: AV, AW (represented by: J. Martins, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor and N. Scafarto, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, C. Biz and F. Blanc, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


AV and AW shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1074/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1079/23: Action brought on 16 November 2023 — Apple v Commission
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition law, digital economy, digital single market, provision of services, social media








C_202400562EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/562


8.1.2024





Action brought on 16 November 2023 — Apple v Commission
(Case T-1079/23)
(C/2024/562)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, S. Love, J. Bourke, Barristers-at-Law, W. Knibbeler and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission decision of 5 September 2023, notified to Apple on 6 September 2023, reference DMA.100022 to open a market investigation in relation to iMessage pursuant to Articles 16 and 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (1) insofar as it is wrongly predicated on a finding that iMessage is a number-independent interpersonal communications service within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (2); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, and material factual errors, in concluding that iMessage is a number-independent interpersonal communications service.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ 2022, L. 265, p. 1).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ 2018, L 321, p. 36).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/562/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-472/22, Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Capital gains on share transfers): Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — NO v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Personal income tax — Tax advantage relating to the taxation of capital gains on transfers of shares in small enterprises — Exclusion of undertakings established in other Member States — Concept of ‘abusive practice’)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, capital transfer tax, establishment, free movement of capital, personal income tax, right of establishment, share, shareholder, tax relief








C_202400525EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/525


8.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — NO v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-472/22, (1) Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Capital gains on share transfers))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Personal income tax - Tax advantage relating to the taxation of capital gains on transfers of shares in small enterprises - Exclusion of undertakings established in other Member States - Concept of ‘abusive practice’)
(C/2024/525)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NO

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a tax practice of a Member State in the field of personal income tax under which a tax advantage, consisting in halving the tax on capital gains accruing from a share transfer, is confined solely to transfers of shares in companies established in that Member State, to the exclusion of transfers of shares in companies established in other Member States.


(1)  
            OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/525/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11248 – KINGSPAN / STEICO)
Date: 2023-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building insulation, building materials, economic concentration, lighting, merger control, renewable resources








C_202301450EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1450


6.12.2023






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11248 – KINGSPAN / STEICO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1450)

On 16 November 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11248. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1450/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)