do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-694/22: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 – European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 110 TFEU – Annual circulation tax – Higher taxation of imported second-hand vehicles than of similar vehicles already on the domestic market)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: import, infringement of EU law, motor vehicle, vehicle registration, vehicle tax








C_202402396EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2396


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
(Case C-694/22) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 110 TFEU - Annual circulation tax - Higher taxation of imported second-hand vehicles than of similar vehicles already on the domestic market)
(C/2024/2396)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Björkland, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and R. Valletta Mallia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 TFEU by levying a higher annual circulation licence fee on motor vehicles registered in Member States other than the Republic of Malta before 1 January 2009 and brought to Malta after that date than on similar vehicles registered in Malta before that date;










2.


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






(1)  
            OJ C 15, 16.1.2023



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2396/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-589/22,  Resorts Mallorca Hotels International: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de las Islas Baleares, Spain) – J.L.O.G., J.J.O.P. v Resorts Mallorca Hotels International SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59/EC – Article 2(1) – Point at which the obligation to provide information and hold consultations arises – Number of actual or projected redundancies – Article 1(1) – Voluntary terminations of employment contracts before redundancies – Method for calculating the number of redundancies)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, industrial restructuring, labour law, labour relations








C_202402391EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2391


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de las Islas Baleares, Spain) — J.L.O.G., J.J.O.P. v Resorts Mallorca Hotels International SL
(Case C-589/22, (1) Resorts Mallorca Hotels International)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 2(1) - Point at which the obligation to provide information and hold consultations arises - Number of actual or projected redundancies - Article 1(1) - Voluntary terminations of employment contracts before redundancies - Method for calculating the number of redundancies)
(C/2024/2391)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de las Islas Baleares

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: J.L.O.G., J.J.O.P.

Defendant: Resorts Mallorca Hotels International SL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
must be interpreted as meaning that the consultation obligation that it lays down arises at the time when the employer, in the context of a restructuring plan, contemplates or plans a reduction of employment positions, the number of which may exceed those fixed in Article 1(1)(a) of that directive, and not when, after having adopted measures involving the reduction of that number, the employer became certain that it would in fact have to dismiss a number of workers greater than those fixed by the latter provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2391/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11393 – KEPPEL / AERMONT CAPITAL / AERMONT)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_202401954EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1954


4.3.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11393 – KEPPEL / AERMONT CAPITAL / AERMONT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1954)

On 22 February 2024, 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 32024M11393. 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/2024/1954/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. – 11463 – MABANAFT / WESTFA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy distribution, energy industry, gas industry, heating, merger control, provision of services








C_202401716EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1716


22.2.2024






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M. – 11463 – MABANAFT / WESTFA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1716)


1.   
On 15 February 2024, 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:






—


Mabanaft GmbH & Co. KG (‘Mabanaft’, Germany) controlled by Marquard & Bahls AG (‘Marquard & Bahls’, Germany),










—


WESTFA Energy GmbH (‘WESTFA’, Germany) controlled by Adeleon Familienholding GmbH (‘Adeleon’, Germany).




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


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






—


Mabanaft is an integrated energy company providing energy solutions for transportation, heating, and industrial needs. Mabanaft is part of the Marquard & Bahls Group which is active in the supply, trading and logistics of energy, petroleum products and chemicals,










—


WESTFA is active in trading and distribution of liquefied petroleum gas (‘LPG’).






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 treatment for certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (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.11463 – MABANAFT / WESTFA
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/2024/1716/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-660/22,  Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione – Italy) – Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Directive 2008/7/EC – Cooperative credit banks having net assets above a certain threshold – National legislation obliging those banks to pay an amount equal to 20% of those net assets in order to transfer their banking business to a public limited company in exchange for securities of that company – Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court – Purely internal situation – Inadmissibility)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, banking, cooperative bank, free movement of capital, public limited company, transfer of businesses








C_202402393EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2393


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-660/22, (1) Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Directive 2008/7/EC - Cooperative credit banks having net assets above a certain threshold - National legislation obliging those banks to pay an amount equal to 20 % of those net assets in order to transfer their banking business to a public limited company in exchange for securities of that company - Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility)
(C/2024/2393)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ente Cambiano società cooperativa per azioni

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) made by decision of 11 October 2022 is inadmissible.


(1)  
            OJ C 24, 23.1.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2393/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Joined Cases C-701/21 P and C-739/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 – Mytilinaios AE – Omilos Epicheiriseon v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), European Commission (Appeal – State aid – Article 107 TFEU – Concept of ‘aid’ – Advantage – Private investor test – Arbitration award setting reduced electricity tariffs – Whether the arbitration award can be imputed to the State – Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 – Article 4(2) – Decision that the measure does not constitute aid)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, arbitration, control of State aid, court of arbitration, electrical energy, electricity supply, price of energy








C_202402386EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2386


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 — Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), European Commission
(Joined Cases C-701/21 P and C-739/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107 TFEU - Concept of ‘aid’ - Advantage - Private investor test - Arbitration award setting reduced electricity tariffs - Whether the arbitration award can be imputed to the State - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 4(2) - Decision that the measure does not constitute aid)
(C/2024/2386)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellants: Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon (represented by: V. Christianos, D. Diakopoulos, G. Karydis, A. Politis, P. Selekos and Ch. Vlachou, dikigoroi) (C-701/21 P), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, I. Georgiopoulos and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents) (C-739/21 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented initially by: E. Bourtzalas, A. Oikonomou, E. Salaka, C. Synodinos and H. Tagaras, dikigoroi, and D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and subsequently by E. Bourtzalas, E. Salaka, C. Synodinos and H. Tagaras, dikigoroi) (C-701/21 P and C-739/21 P), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, I. Georgiopoulos and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents) (C-701/21 P); Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon (represented by: D. Diakopoulos, N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoroi) (C-739/21 P)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: Federal Republic of Germany, (represented initially by: J. Möller and D. Klebs, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 September 2021, DEI v Commission (T-639/14 RENV, T-352/15 and T-740/17, EU:T:2021:604);










2.


Refers Cases T-639/14 RENV, T-352/15 and T-740/17 back to the General Court of the European Union for it to adjudicate on the pleas in law and arguments raised before it on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has not given a ruling;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2386/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-674/22,  Gemeente Dinkelland: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Gelderland – Netherlands) – Gemeente Dinkelland v Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxes levied in breach of EU law – Obligation to refund value added tax (VAT) and to pay interest on that amount – Refund resulting from errors made in the taxable person’s accounts – Refund resulting from the retroactive amendment of the detailed rules for calculating the deductible VAT relating to the taxable person’s general costs)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interest, tax collection, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_202402395EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2395


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Gelderland — Netherlands) — Gemeente Dinkelland v Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle
(Case C-674/22, (1) Gemeente Dinkelland)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxes levied in breach of EU law - Obligation to refund value added tax (VAT) and to pay interest on that amount - Refund resulting from errors made in the taxable person’s accounts - Refund resulting from the retroactive amendment of the detailed rules for calculating the deductible VAT relating to the taxable person’s general costs)
(C/2024/2395)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gemeente Dinkelland

Defendant: Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as not requiring the payment of interest to a taxable person as from the payment of an amount of value added tax (VAT) which is subsequently refunded by the tax authority, where that refund results, in part, from the finding that that taxable person, due to errors in its accounts, did not fully exercise its right to deduct input VAT for the years concerned and, in part, from an amendment, with retroactive effect, of the detailed rules for calculating the deductible VAT relating to the general costs of that taxable person where those rules are established under the sole responsibility of that taxable person.


(1)  
            OJ C 45, 6.2.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2395/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11360 – DCC / PROGAS)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, gas, gas industry, merger control, motor fuel, petroleum, retail selling, wholesale selling








C_202402475EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2475


2.4.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11360 – DCC / PROGAS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2475)

On 22 February 2024, 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 3?YEAR?M11360. 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/2024/2475/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-104/24: Action brought on 22 February 2024 – Kokito I Punt v EUIPO – Fédération française de football (Representation of a rooster)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202402636EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2636


22.4.2024






Action brought on 22 February 2024 – Kokito I Punt v EUIPO – Fédération française de football (Representation of a rooster)


(Case T-104/24)

(C/2024/2636)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Kokito I Punt, SL (Gandía, Spain) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez and Y. Hernández Viñes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fédération française de football (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for a European Union figurative mark (Representation of a rooster) – Application for registration No 18 469 266
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2023 in Case R 901/2023-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.





Plea in law







—


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/2024/2636/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11355 – VAN DRIE / F&F)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: calf, economic concentration, live animal, merger control, milk product, slaughter of animals, veal, vegetable product, wholesale trade








C_202401983EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1983


5.3.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11355 – VAN DRIE / F&F)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1983)

On 22 February 2024, 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 32024M11355. 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/2024/1983/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)