do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-171/23, UP CAFFE: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu – Croatia) – UP CAFFE d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Point 19 of Article 287 – VAT exemption scheme for small enterprises – Abusive practice by forming a new company)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, incorporation, small business, tax evasion, tax exemption, tax law








C_202406892EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6892


25.11.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu – Croatia) – UP CAFFE d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske


(Case C-171/23,
                (1)
UP CAFFE)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 19 of Article 287 - VAT exemption scheme for small enterprises - Abusive practice by forming a new company)
(C/2024/6892)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UP CAFFE d.o.o.

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/856 of 25 May 2016, read in the light of the principle of the prohibition of abusive practices, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that the formation of a company constitutes an abusive practice intended to maintain the benefit of the value added tax exemption scheme laid down in point 19 of Article 287 of that Directive 2006/112, in respect of an activity previously carried out, under that scheme, by another company, that Directive 2006/112 requires that the company accordingly formed cannot benefit from that scheme, even in the absence of specific provisions laying down the prohibition of such abusive practices in the national legal system.


(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6892/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-361/21, PET-PROM: Order of the President of the Court of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske – Croatia) – IC v PET-PROM d.o.o.
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: higher court, right to justice, ruling








C_202500254EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/254


20.1.2025






Order of the President of the Court of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske – Croatia) – IC v PET-PROM d.o.o.


(Case C-361/21,
                (1)
PET-PROM)

(C/2025/254)
Language of the case: Croatian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/254/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-727/22, Friends of the Irish Environment (Project Ireland 2040): Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court – Ireland) – Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Article 2(a) – Concept of plans and programmes … which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions – Measure adopted by the government of a Member State solely on the basis of a provision of the Constitution of that Member State providing that the executive power of the State is to be exercised by or on the authority of that government)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: constitution, environmental impact, environmental protection, executive power, government, regional development, regional planning








C_202500877EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/877


17.2.2025






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court – Ireland) – Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland, Attorney General


(Case C-727/22,
                (1)
Friends of the Irish Environment (Project Ireland 2040))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘plans and programmes … which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ - Measure adopted by the government of a Member State solely on the basis of a provision of the Constitution of that Member State providing that the executive power of the State is to be exercised by or on the authority of that government)
(C/2025/877)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment CLG

Defendants: Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
must be interpreted as meaning that a measure adopted by the government of a Member State solely on the basis of a provision of the Constitution of that Member State providing that the executive power of the State is to be exercised by or on the authority of that government does not meet the condition of being ‘required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ and, consequently, cannot constitute a ‘plan’ or a ‘programme’ for the purposes of that Article 2(a).


(1)  
            OJ C 63, 20.2.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/877/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-494/23, Mahá: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud – Czech Republic) – QE, IJ v DP, EB (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 1(1) – Scope – Civil and commercial matters – Concept – Proceedings seeking to substitute the defendant’s consent to the release of property seized by the law enforcement authorities from the custody of the court – Article 8(2) – Application to intervene – Concept of third party)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, seizure of goods








C_202406898EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6898


25.11.2024






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud – Czech Republic) – QE, IJ v DP, EB


(Case C-494/23,
                (1)
Mahá)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Civil and commercial matters - Concept - Proceedings seeking to substitute the defendant’s consent to the release of property seized by the law enforcement authorities from the custody of the court - Article 8(2) - Application to intervene - Concept of ‘third party’)
(C/2024/6898)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: QE, IJ

Defendants: DP, EB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, does not include an action seeking to substitute the defendant’s consent in the context of an application to release an item from the custody of the court; whereas that action constitutes proceedings that are incidental to the proceedings to place the item seized by the law enforcement authorities into the custody of the court.


(1)  
            OJ C 746, 20.11.2023.

(2)  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.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6898/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-522/23: Order of the General Court of 4 October 2024 – Vossko v Council (Action for annulment – Commercial policy – Article XXVIII of the GATT – Agreement between the European Union and Brazil – Modification of concessions on tariff rate quotas as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union – Cooked poultry meat – Council approval decision on behalf of the Union – No individual concern – Non-regulatory act – Inadmissibility)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Brazil, GATT, United Kingdom, poultrymeat, prepared foodstuff, ratification of an agreement, revision of an agreement, tariff quota, trade agreement (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_202407032EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7032


2.12.2024






Order of the General Court of 4 October 2024 – Vossko v Council


(Case T-522/23)
                (1)

(Action for annulment - Commercial policy - Article XXVIII of the GATT - Agreement between the European Union and Brazil - Modification of concessions on tariff rate quotas as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union - Cooked poultry meat - Council approval decision on behalf of the Union - No individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)
(C/2024/7032)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vossko GmbH & Co. KG (Ostbevern, Germany) (represented by: L. Harings, M. Jürgens and F. Jacobs, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: N. Brzezinski and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2023/1056 of 25 May 2023 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (OJ 2023 L 142, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the application to intervene of the European Commission.










3.


Vossko GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.










4.


The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/70, 9.10.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7032/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-581/22 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2024 – thyssenkrupp AG v European Commission (Appeal – Competition – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Concentration between undertakings – Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement – Determination of the relevant markets – Significant impediment to effective competition – Creation or strengthening of a dominant position – Non-coordinated effects – Standard of proof – Concepts of important competitive force and close competitors – Closeness of competition between the merging parties – Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index – Requests for information – Distortion)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, economic concentration, flat product, judicial review, merger control, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, steel








C_202501200EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1200


3.3.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2024 – thyssenkrupp AG v European Commission


(Case C-581/22 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Concentration between undertakings - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement - Determination of the relevant markets - Significant impediment to effective competition - Creation or strengthening of a dominant position - Non-coordinated effects - Standard of proof - Concepts of ‘important competitive force’ and ‘close competitors’ - Closeness of competition between the merging parties - Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index - Requests for information - Distortion)
(C/2025/1200)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: thyssenkrupp AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, O. Schley and J. Ziebarth, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by G. Conte, T. Franchoo, C. Sjödin and I. Zaloguin, and subsequently by G. Conte, T. Franchoo and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders thyssenkrupp AG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1200/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-513/24: Action brought on 4 October 2024 – Lunar Outpost v EUIPO (LUNAR OUTPOST)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, electronic device, environmental monitoring, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_202406949EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6949


25.11.2024






Action brought on 4 October 2024 – Lunar Outpost v EUIPO (LUNAR OUTPOST)


(Case T-513/24)

(C/2024/6949)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lunar Outpost Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: P. Van Eecke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LUNAR OUTPOST – Application for registration No 18 848 606
         

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2024 in Case R 2572/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6949/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-512/24: Action brought on 4 October 2024 – Oberon Fuels v EUIPO – Dimeta (RDME)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, biofuel, motor fuel, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202407352EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7352


16.12.2024






Action brought on 4 October 2024 – Oberon Fuels v EUIPO – Dimeta (RDME)


(Case T-512/24)

(C/2024/7352)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Oberon Fuels, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Körner and J. Wachinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dimeta BV (Leiden, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark RDME – Application for registration No 18 702 940
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2024 in Case R 664/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the trade mark at issue to remain on the register of EUIPO;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7352/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1745 of 24 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/1745, 24.6.2024)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, territorial dispute, territorial law, trade restriction




L_202490606EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2024/90606


4.10.2024






Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1745 of 24 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2024/1745, 24 June 2024
)







1.


On page 364, in Annex I, in entry 661, under the column ‘Name’











for:





                           ‘M Star International Trading Company LimitedLocal name: 




美星國際貿易(香港)有限公司;






美星國際貿易有限公司

A.k.a: M-Star International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Meixing International Trade Co., Ltd’,












read:





                           ‘M Star International Trading Company LimitedLocal name: 




美星國際貿易有限公司

A.k.a: M-Star International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Meixing International Trade Co., Ltd’.











2.


On page 364, in Annex I, in entry 661, under the column ‘Identifying Information’











for:





                           ‘Address(es): Room 2501, International Science & Technology
Building, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s
Republic of China; No. 52, Fu Hang Road, Tuen Mun, NT, Hong
Kong; Flat/Rm D19 3/F, Wong King Industrial Building, No 2 Tai
Yau Street, KL, Hong Kong
Telephone: + 86 15818601197
Website: http://www.m-starit.com

Email: sales@m-starit.com
Registration number: 61365134 (USCC); 2025579 (CR No.)’,












read:





                           ‘Address(es): Room 2501, International Science & Technology
Building, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s
Republic of China; Flat/Rm D19 3/F, Wong King Industrial Building, No 2 Tai
Yau Street, KL, Hong Kong
Telephone: + 86 15818601197
Website: http://www.m-starit.com

Email: sales@m-starit.com
Registration number: 61365134 (BRN)’.







ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1745/corrigendum/2024-10-04/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-262/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 October 2024 – UPL Europe Ltd, Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV v European Commission (Appeal – Plant protection products – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 – Non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 – Action for annulment)
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: endocrine disruptor, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, toxic substance, withdrawal from the market








C_202407012EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7012


2.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 October 2024 – UPL Europe Ltd, Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV v European Commission


(Case C-262/23 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 - Action for annulment)
(C/2024/7012)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: UPL Europe Ltd, Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and M. ter Haar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 February 2023, UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission (T-742/20, EU:T:2023:74), in so far as it found that the European Commission could rely, in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 of 14 December 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, on the opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency on the classification of mancozeb as a toxic substance for reproduction category 1B;










2.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










3.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the fourth plea in law relied on before it;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 216, 19.6.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7012/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)