do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.109336Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid








C_202401894EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1894


1.3.2024






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.109336
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1894)







Date of adoption of the decision


13.12.2023




Aid number


SA.109336




Member State


Spain




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Modificación del mapa de ayudas regionales de España (1 de enero de 2022 — 31 de deciembre de 2027) para el período 1 de enero de 2024 — 31 de deciembre de 2027 (revisión intermedia)




Legal basis


REVISION DEL MAPA DE AYUDAS REGIONALES 2022-2027 PARA EL PERIODO 2024-2027-ESPAÑA SA.100859 (2021/N) MODIFICADA POR SA.106039 (2023/N)




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Regional development (including territorial cooperation)




Form of aid


 




Budget


 




Intensity


60,0  %




Duration


1.1.2024 — 31.12.2027




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministerio de Hacienda y Función Pública




Paseo de la Castellana, 162 Planta 22. Madrid








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1894/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-135/24: Action brought on 1 March 2024 – Ty v EUIPO – Carletto Management & Logistik (Glubschi)
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic game, registered trade mark, sports equipment, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_202402642EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2642


22.4.2024






Action brought on 1 March 2024 – Ty v EUIPO – Carletto Management & Logistik (Glubschi)


(Case T-135/24)

(C/2024/2642)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ty, Inc. (Westmont, Illinois, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, J. Fuhrmann and A. Malkmes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carletto Management & Logistik AG (Wollerau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Glubschi – EU trade mark No 11 756 161
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2023 in Case R 1918/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, in the event that the intervener intervenes in the proceedings, order that party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2642/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-163/24, Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice and Curtea de Apel Bucureşti: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 1 March 2024 – BX v Statul Român – Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Curtea de Apel București
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural real estate, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, area of holding, eligibility criteria, liability of the State, single payment scheme








C_202403737EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3737


24.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 1 March 2024 – BX v Statul Român – Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Curtea de Apel București


(Case C-163/24, Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice and Curtea de Apel Bucureşti)

(C/2024/3737)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant-applicant: BX

Respondent-defendant: Statul Român – Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Curtea de Apel București

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 20(1) of [Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003] of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (1) (in the version applicable prior to its repeal by [Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2)]) constitute a provision of EU law conferring specific rights on individuals, where infringement of those rights could give rise to State liability as a result of a decision of a national court of last instance?










2.


Should the concept of ‘factually correct information’ in Article 68(1) [of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003], (3) be interpreted as including both the correct declaration of land areas by the farmer and the correct identification of the parcel of land used and its boundaries?










3.


Given the circumstances of the case, does the failure of the national court of last instance to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 68 of Regulation No 796/2004 constitute a manifest and sufficiently serious breach such as to render the State liable for the damage allegedly caused by that court’s judgment?






(1)  
            OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1, Special edition 03/vol. 49, p. 177.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(3)  
            OJ 2004, L 141, p. 18, Special edition 03/vol. 56, p. 210.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3737/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11480 – COBEPA / SD 2 HOLDING)
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, fire protection, investment, investment company, merger control, service, subsidiary, video surveillance








C_202402094EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2094


11.3.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11480 – COBEPA / SD 2 HOLDING)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2094)

On 1 March 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 32024M11480. 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/2024/2094/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-164/24, Cityland: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad – Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 March 2024 – ‘Cityland’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ – Veliko Tarnovo
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, direct applicability, interest, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, tax collection, taxpayer








C_202403160EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3160


21.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad – Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 March 2024 – ‘Cityland’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ – Veliko Tarnovo


(Case C-164/24, Cityland)

(C/2024/3160)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad – Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant in the administrative proceedings:
            ‘Cityland’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ – Veliko Tarnovo

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 106(2)(2)(b) and Article 176(3) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax) contrary to Article 213(1) of Council Directive 2006/112 (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Article 213(1) of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect?










3.


If the first question is answered in the negative, do Article 213(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as well as the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, permit exclusion from the VAT system in the event of formal infringements of the law, without account being taken of the time of commission of the offence, the type of offence, the other conduct of the person and the existence of other subjective circumstances, such as commercial litigation for failure to pay the tax due on time?










4.


If the first question is answered in the negative, do Article 213(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of proportionality permit exclusion from the VAT system at the same time as the imposition of interest for failure to pay declared tax on time, without the revenue authority being required to analyse the type and nature of the company’s activity, its conduct as a taxable person and the severity of each of the proposed measures?






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3160/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11317 – OEP HITCH / EMC / CBM)
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural vehicle, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, tractor, vehicle parts








C_202402111EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2111


11.3.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11317 – OEP HITCH / EMC / CBM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2111)

On 1 March 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 32024M11317. 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/2024/2111/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-137/24: Action brought on 1 March 2024 – Ty v EUIPO – Carletto Management & Logistik (Glubschis)
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, book trade, clothing, footwear industry, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_202402644EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2644


22.4.2024






Action brought on 1 March 2024 – Ty v EUIPO – Carletto Management & Logistik (Glubschis)


(Case T-137/24)

(C/2024/2644)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ty, Inc. (Westmont, Illinois, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, J. Fuhrmann and A. Malkmes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carletto Management & Logistik AG (Wollerau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Glubschis – International registration designating the European Union No 1 281 710
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2023 in Case R 1835/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, in the event that the intervener intervenes in the proceedings, order that party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2644/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-169/24: Action brought on 1 March 2024 – European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disaster resilience, flood, infringement of EU law








C_202402603EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2603


22.4.2024






Action brought on 1 March 2024 – European Commission v Hellenic Republic


(Case C-169/24)

(C/2024/2603)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, S. Kamperou)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


rule that the Hellenic Republic, by having failed to review and, if necessary, update by 22 December 2019 the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and by having failed to make available to the Commission by 22 March 2020 their review and potential updates, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(2) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks; (1)











—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic failed to review and, if necessary, update the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps within the time limits provided for.
In addition, the European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic failed to make available to the Commission the review of and potential updates to the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps within the time limits provided for.
On those grounds, the Hellenic Republic infringed Article 14(2) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC.


(1)  
            OJ 2007 L 288, p. 27.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2603/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 1 March 2024 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40437 – APPLE – APP STORE PRACTICES (MUSIC STREAMING) – Meeting by Video Conference – via Skype for Business – Rapporteur: The Netherlands
Date: 2024-03-01
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, broadcasting, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic commerce, mobile application, music, sanction (EU)








C_202403555EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3555


7.6.2024






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 1 March 2024 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40437 – APPLE – APP STORE PRACTICES (MUSIC STREAMING) – Meeting by Video Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’
         
Rapporteur: The Netherlands
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/3555)


1.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (15 Member States) agree with the Commission that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes an abuse of a dominant position consisting in the imposition of unfair trading conditions that infringes Article 102(a) TFEU and Article 54(a) of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (15 Member States) agree with the Commission that the addressee of the draft decision should be ordered to bring the infringement to an end, as set out in the draft decision.



3.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (15 Member States) agree with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision.



4.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (15 Member States) agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine to be imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.



5.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (15 Member States) agree with the Commission that periodic penalty payments should be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision pursuant to Article 24(1)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.



6.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (15 Member States) recommend the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.




ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3555/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)