do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-798/23, Abbottly: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 21 December 2023 — Minister for Justice v SH
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, alternative sentence, carrying out of sentence, imprisonment








C_202401845EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1845


11.3.2024





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 21 December 2023 — Minister for Justice v SH
(Case C-798/23, Abbottly (1))
(C/2024/1845)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister for Justice

Respondent: SH

Questions referred







1.


Where the surrender of the requested person is sought for the purpose of serving a custodial sentence imposed on that person as a result of violating the terms of a sentence of police supervision previously imposed on him, in circumstances where the court that imposed that custodial sentence had a discretion whether to impose a custodial sentence (though no discretion as to the duration of the sentence if imposed), are the proceedings leading to the imposition of that custodial sentence part of the ‘trial resulting in the decision’
                      for the purposes of Article 4a(l) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (2)?










2.


Was the decision to convert the sentence of police supervision into a custodial sentence in the circumstances set out in (1) above, one that had the purpose or effect of modifying the nature and/or quantum of the sentence previously imposed on the requested person and, in particular, the sentence of police supervision that formed part of his previous sentence, such as to come within the exception referred to in para. 77 of Ardic (3)?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).

(3)  Case C-571/17 PPU, Samet Ardic, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017, EU:C:2017:1026.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1845/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_202301490EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1490


21.12.2023






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
                (1)
)


(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1490)


Decision granting an authorisation in the context of a review














Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiryof review period


Repealed Decision


Reasons for the decision




C(2023) 8397


14 December 2023


trichloroethylene (TCE)
(EC No: 201-167-4; CAS No: 79-01-6)


DOMO Caproleuna GmbH, Am Haupttor Bau 3101, 06237 Leuna, Germany


REACH/23/36/0/R1


As an extraction solvent for the purification of caprolactam from caprolactam oil


31 December 2033


C(2017) 69


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.






(1)  
            OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1490/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-794/23, Finanzamt Österreich: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 December 2023 – Finanzamt Österreich v P GmbH
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, consumer, invoicing, tax collection, tax relief, taxpayer








C_202402587EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2587


22.4.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 December 2023 – Finanzamt Österreich v P GmbH


(Case C-794/23, Finanzamt Österreich)

(C/2024/2587)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Österreich

Interested party: P GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has supplied a service and mentioned in his invoice a VAT amount calculated on the basis of an incorrect tax rate is not liable, under that provision, for the part of the VAT invoiced incorrectly if the service mentioned on the specific invoice in question was supplied to a non-taxable person, even if the taxable person has supplied similar services to other taxable persons?










2.


Is ‘final consumer who does not have a right to deduct input VAT’ within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 December 2022 in Case C-378/21 (2) to be understood as referring only to a non-taxable person or also to a taxable person using the specific service only for private purposes (or for other purposes not conferring the right to deduct input VAT) and therefore lacking the right to deduct input VAT?










3.


In the event of simplified invoicing in accordance with Article 238 of Directive 2006/112/EC, what criteria are to be used to assess (possibly by way of an estimate) for which invoices the taxable person is not liable for the incorrectly invoiced amount because there is no risk of loss of tax revenue?






(1)  
            OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  Judgment of 8 December 2022, C-378/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:968.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2587/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-431/22, Scuola europea di Varese: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Scuola europea di Varese v PD, as person exercising parental responsibility over NG, LC, as person exercising parental responsibility over NG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools — Article 27(2) — General Rules of the European Schools — Articles 62, 66 and 67 — Challenge to the decision of a Class Council not to authorise a pupil to be promoted to the year above in the secondary school — Lack of jurisdiction of the national courts — Sole jurisdiction of the Complaints Board of the European Schools — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European school, backwardness at school, jurisdiction, organisation of teaching, parental responsibility, pupil, secondary education








C_202401383EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1383


19.2.2024





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Scuola europea di Varese v PD, as person exercising parental responsibility over NG, LC, as person exercising parental responsibility over NG
(Case C-431/22, (1) Scuola europea di Varese)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools - Article 27(2) - General Rules of the European Schools - Articles 62, 66 and 67 - Challenge to the decision of a Class Council not to authorise a pupil to be promoted to the year above in the secondary school - Lack of jurisdiction of the national courts - Sole jurisdiction of the Complaints Board of the European Schools - Effective judicial protection)
(C/2024/1383)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Scuola europea di Varese

Defendants: PD, as person exercising parental responsibility over NG, LC, as person exercising parental responsibility over NG

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, concluded in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994 between the Member States and the European Communities, and Articles 61, 62, 66 and 67 of the General Rules of the European Schools, in version No 2014-03-D-14-en-11, must be interpreted as meaning that the Complaints Board is to have sole jurisdiction in the first and final instance, once all administrative channels provided for in those rules have been exhausted, in any dispute concerning the legality of the decision of a Class Council of a European School not to authorise a pupil to be promoted to the year above in the secondary school.


(1)  
            OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1383/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11186 – EQT / DECHRA)
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health care, investment, merger control, provision of services, service, technology, veterinary medicinal product, veterinary medicine








C_202405908EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5908


30.9.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11186 – EQT / DECHRA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/5908)

On 21 December 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 32023M11186. 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/2024/5908/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-791/22: Order of the General Court of 21 December 2023 — Broad Far (Hong Kong) and M21 v Commission (Action for annulment — Public health — Withdrawal of certain exemptions for heated tobacco products — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: harmonisation of standards, market approval, marketing standard, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_202402034EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2034


18.3.2024





Order of the General Court of 21 December 2023 — Broad Far (Hong Kong) and M21 v Commission
(Case T-791/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Withdrawal of certain exemptions for heated tobacco products - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(C/2024/2034)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Broad Far (Hong Kong) Ltd (Wan Chai, Hong Kong, China), M21 Srl (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Specchiale, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, D. Recchia and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek, first, the annulment or the non-application of Article 27(2) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1), and, secondly, the annulment of Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100 of 29 June 2022 amending Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the withdrawal of certain exemptions in respect of heated tobacco products (OJ 2022 L 283, p. 4).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the French Republic, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










3.


Broad Far (Hong Kong) Ltd and M21 Srl shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.










4.


Broad Far (Hong Kong), M21, the Commission, the French Republic, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  
            OJ C 71, 27.2.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2034/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-790/23, Qassioun: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 21 December 2023 — X v Maahanmuuttovirasto
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, asylum seeker, international protection, residence permit, right of asylum








C_202401843EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1843


11.3.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 21 December 2023 — X v Maahanmuuttovirasto
(Case C-790/23, Qassioun (1))
(C/2024/1843)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Maahanmuuttovirasto (Finnish Immigration Service)

Question referred

Must Article 18(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person be interpreted as meaning that the rejection of an application, within the meaning of that provision, covers a situation in which a temporary residence document based on the need for protection previously granted to the person concerned in Denmark on his or her application was not renewed, where the decision not to renew was not taken on the application of that person but by the authority concerned of its own motion?


(1)  The present case has been given a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1843/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11344 – WT / FEI) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronic component, merger control, provision of services, supply








C_202301607EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1607


21.12.2023






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11344 – WT / FEI)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1607)


1.   
On 13 December 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


WT Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (‘WT’, Taiwan),










—


Future Electronics Inc. (‘FEI’, Canada), currently owned and controlled by Alonim Investments Inc. (‘Alonim’, Canada).




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


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






—


WT distributed electronic components in Asia, focusing on semiconductors but also supplying passive components and additional services,










—


FEI distributes electronic components globally, focusing on semiconductors as well as interconnect, passive and electromechanical components.






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.11344 – WT / FEI
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
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 160, 5.5.2023, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1607/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11356 – PLATINUM / BAIN CAPITAL / US LBM)
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, distributor, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_202401718EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1718


23.2.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11356 – PLATINUM / BAIN CAPITAL / US LBM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1718)

On 21 December 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 32023M11356. 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/2024/1718/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1178/23: Action brought on 21 December 2023 — Antimo Caputo v EUIPO — Barbato (NuvolaSuper)
Date: 2023-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, coffee, confectionery, prepared foodstuff, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, sugar, tea, trade-mark law








C_202401548EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1548


26.2.2024





Action brought on 21 December 2023 — Antimo Caputo v EUIPO — Barbato (NuvolaSuper)
(Case T-1178/23)
(C/2024/1548)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Antimo Caputo Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: F. Musella, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pasquale Barbato (Villanova De Bellis (MN), Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark NuvolaSuper — Application for registration No 18 362 145

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2023 in Case R 2068/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject opposition No B 3 145 038 in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for review;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1548/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)