do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-743/22, DISA: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo – Spain) – DISA Suministros y Trading SLU (DISA) v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Directive 2003/96/EC – Article 5 – Excise duty on mineral oils – Regional rate of excise duties on mineral oils on top of the national rate – Differentiated rates of excise duties in the territory of a Member State according to the region in which the product is consumed)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, environmental tax, local tax, mineral oil, tax collection, tax relief








C_202404296EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4296


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo – Spain) – DISA Suministros y Trading SLU (DISA) v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria


(Case C-743/22,
                (1)
DISA)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 5 - Excise duty on mineral oils - Regional rate of excise duties on mineral oils on top of the national rate - Differentiated rates of excise duties in the territory of a Member State according to the region in which the product is consumed)
(C/2024/4296)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DISA Suministros y Trading SLU (DISA)

Defendant: Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, and by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, in particular Article 5 thereof,
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises regions or autonomous communities to set different rates of excise duty for the same product and the same use depending on the territory in which the product is consumed other than in the cases provided for that purpose.


(1)  
            OJ C 121, 3.4.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4296/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-663/22, Expedia: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio – Italy) – Expedia Inc. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 – Articles 1, 15, 16 and 18 – Objective – Application – Monitoring – Review – Measures adopted by a Member State – Obligation to provide information on the economic situation of a provider of online intermediation services)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic situation, electronic commerce, provision of services, revenue, trade information, trade intermediary








C_202404293EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4293


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio – Italy) – Expedia Inc. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni


(Case C-663/22, Expedia)
                (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 - Articles 1, 15, 16 and 18 - Objective - Application - Monitoring - Review - Measures adopted by a Member State - Obligation to provide information on the economic situation of a provider of online intermediation services)
(C/2024/4293)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Appliquant: Expedia Inc.

Défendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not justify, with a view to the adequate and effective implementation of that regulation, the adoption of measures by a Member State under which, on pain of penalties, providers of online intermediation services are subject, with a view to providing their services in that Member State, to the obligation to send periodically to an authority of that Member State a document relating to their economic situation, in which it is necessary to set out a large amount of information relating, in particular, to the revenues of those service providers.


(1)  
            OJ C 63, 20.2.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4293/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-130/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Vialto Consulting Kft. v European Commission (Appeal – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance – Subsidies – Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Administrative penalties – Exclusion from public procurement procedures and from procedures for the award of grants financed from the general budget of the European Union – Publication of the exclusion on the website of the European Commission – Proportionality of the penalties – Failure to indicate the absence of a final judgment or a final administrative decision)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Internet site, damages, disclosure of information, pre-accession aid, principle of proportionality, public procurement, sanction (EU)








C_202404298EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4298


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Vialto Consulting Kft. v European Commission


(Case C-130/23 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Subsidies - Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Administrative penalties - Exclusion from public procurement procedures and from procedures for the award of grants financed from the general budget of the European Union - Publication of the exclusion on the website of the European Commission - Proportionality of the penalties - Failure to indicate the absence of a final judgment or a final administrative decision)
(C/2024/4298)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Vialto Consulting Kft. (represented by: S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Adamopoulos, F. Behre and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Vialto Consulting Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 286, 14.8.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4298/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2832 of 13 December 2023 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest (Official Journal of the European Union L, 2023/2832, 15 December 2023)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, application of EU law, control of State aid, eligibility criteria, services of general interest, terms for aid








L_202490320EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2023/2832


30.5.2024






Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2832 of 13 December 2023 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest

(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2023/2832, 15 December 2023
)


On page 11, in footnote 23:
for:







‘(23)


Commission Regulations (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 9) and (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector (OJ L 190, 28.6.2014, p. 45), and Regulation (EU) 2023/2831.’,





read:







‘(23)


Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector (OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 9), Commission Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector (OJ L 190, 28.6.2014, p. 45) and Regulation (EU) 2023/2831.’.







ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2832/corrigendum/2024-05-30/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11386 – KKR / NETCO)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control, provision of services, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_202406993EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6993


19.11.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11386 – KKR / NETCO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6993)

On 30 May 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 32024M11386. 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/2024/6993/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-353/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Ryanair DAC v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland (Appeal – State aid – Article 107(3)(b) TFEU – Finnish air-transport market – Aid granted by the Republic of Finland to an airline amid the COVID-19 pandemic – Temporary Framework for State aid measures – State guarantee for a loan – Decision by the European Commission not to raise objections – Aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy – Principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination – Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, State aid, aid to undertakings, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, credit guarantee, epidemic, equal treatment, principle of proportionality








C_202404289EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4289


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Ryanair DAC v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland


(Case C-353/21 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Finnish air-transport market - Aid granted by the Republic of Finland to an airline amid the COVID-19 pandemic - Temporary Framework for State aid measures - State guarantee for a loan - Decision by the European Commission not to raise objections - Aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy - Principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services)
(C/2024/4289)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented initially by: V. Blanc, F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, avocats, D. Pérez de Lamo, S. Rating, abogados, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and subsequently by F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, avocats, D. Pérez de Lamo, S. Rating, abogados, and I.-G. Metaxas- Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and F. Tomat, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. Herranz Elizalde, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented initially by: A.-L. Desjonquères, P. Dodeller, A. Ferrand, T. Stéhelin and N. Vincent, subsequently by A.-L. Desjonquères, T. Stéhelin and N. Vincent, and finally by A.-L. Desjonquères and T. Stéhelin, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Laine and H. Leppo, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4289/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-400/22, Conny: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin – Germany) – VT, UR v Conny GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2011/83/EU – Article 8(2) – Distance contracts concluded by electronic means – Information requirements for the trader – Order implying an obligation to pay – Order placed by activating a button or similar function on a website – Obligation on the trader to label that button or similar function with the words order with obligation to pay or a corresponding formulation – Conditional payment obligation)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, consumer information, contract terms, digital contract, distance selling, payment








C_202404290EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4290


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin – Germany) – VT, UR v Conny GmbH


(Case C-400/22,
                (1)
Conny)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 8(2) - Distance contracts concluded by electronic means - Information requirements for the trader - Order implying an obligation to pay - Order placed by activating a button or similar function on a website - Obligation on the trader to label that button or similar function with the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ or a corresponding formulation - Conditional payment obligation)
(C/2024/4290)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VT, UR

Defendant: Conny GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 8(2) 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, in the case of distance contracts concluded through websites, the obligation on the trader to ensure that the consumer, when he or she places his or her order, explicitly agrees to an obligation to pay, applies even where the consumer is required to pay that trader the pecuniary consideration only after a subsequent condition has been satisfied.


(1)  
            OJ C 408, 24.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4290/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-261/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE v European Commission, Tech-Fab Europe eV (Appeal – Dumping – Imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Calculation of the normal value – Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Article 2(5) – Calculation of costs associated with the production and sale of a product under investigation on the basis of records of the party under investigation – Costs not reasonably reflected in records – Adjustment on the basis of the costs of other producers or exporters in the same country or on any other reasonable basis – European Commission’s discretion)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Egypt, anti-dumping duty, discretionary power, glass fibre, import (EU), market prices, originating product, production cost, textile product








C_202404300EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4300


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE v European Commission, Tech-Fab Europe eV


(Case C-261/23 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Calculation of the normal value - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 2(5) - Calculation of costs associated with the production and sale of a product under investigation on the basis of records of the party under investigation - Costs not reasonably reflected in records - Adjustment on the basis of the costs of other producers or exporters in the same country or on any other reasonable basis - European Commission’s discretion)
(C/2024/4300)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (represented by: V. Crochet and B. Servais, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Masi, G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Tech-Fab Europe eV (represented by: J. Beck and L. Ruessmann, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Tech-Fab Europe eV.






(1)  
            OJ C 216, 19.6.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4300/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-385/24 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2024 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2024 in Case T-623/18, EO v Commission
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), language skills, legality, recruitment








C_202404847EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4847


12.8.2024






Appeal brought on 30 May 2024 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2024 in Case T-623/18, EO v Commission


(Case C-385/24 P)

(C/2024/4847)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, D. Milanowska, G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: EO

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and










—


order the Applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits three grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in the interpretation of the effects of a previous judgment annulling a notice of competition on the legality of the contested decision of the Selection Board, by holding that to the annulment of the notice should follow as an automatic consequence the annulment of the contested decision.
Second, the General Court distorted the facts concerning the linguistic skills of the Applicant in first instance by omitting to consider facts available to it and that unequivocally showed that there could be no close connection between the illegality of the notice of competition and that of the contested decision of the Selection Board.
Third, the General Court infringed the obligation to motivate its own judgments since, on the one hand, it did not explain why it was unnecessary to decide on the admissibility of the plea of illegality of the notice of competition raised by the Applicant in first instance and, on the other, when turning to the consequences of the annulment of the contested decision, it contradicted its previous assessment regarding the automatic annulment of that decision.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4847/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-110/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Autoridad Portuaria de Bilbao v Commission (Appeal – State aid – Ports sector – Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Spain in favour of ports in the province of Biscay – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market – Existing aid – Advantage – Burden of proof – Appropriate measures)
Date: 2024-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Basque Country, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, harbour installation, proof, tax exemption








C_202404297EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4297


15.7.2024






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 – Autoridad Portuaria de Bilbao v Commission


(Case C-110/23 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Ports sector - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Spain in favour of ports in the province of Biscay - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid - Advantage - Burden of proof - Appropriate measures)
(C/2024/4297)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Autoridad Portuaria de Bilbao (represented by: X. Codina García-Andrade and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.M. Carpi Badía and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Autoridad Portuaria de Bilbao to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 173, 15.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4297/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)