do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-46/12: Action brought on 23 April 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU)








C_2012184EN.01002503.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/25





Action brought on 23 April 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-46/12)
2012/C 184/56
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-186/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Impacto Azul, Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA and Others
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, type of business








C_2012217EN.01000602.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Impacto Azul, Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA and Others
(Case C-186/12)
2012/C 217/11
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Impacto Azul, Lda

Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, Bouygues Imobiliária, SGPS, Lda, Bouygues Immobilier S.A., Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

Question referred

Is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 49 TFEU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European [Union], for the application of the rules in Article 501 of the [Portuguese Code of Commercial Companies] to undertakings having their seat in another Member State to be excluded pursuant to the rules contained in Article 481(2) of [that code]?
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2012 of 23 April 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2012110EN.01001701.xml










24.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 110/17








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 350/2012
of 23 April 2012
         
implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 46(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.












(2)


The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person and two entities on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.












(3)


The list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The person and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.




ANNEX

PERSON AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

A Sedghi
Walship SA
Morison Menon Chartered Accountant
Case T-163/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council (Applications for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012174EN.01002401.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/24





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council
(Case T-163/12 R)
(Applications for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Disregard of the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 174/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Anatoly Ternavsky (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Application for suspension of the application of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95) and of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37)

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-191/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, VAT, tax relief








C_2012243EN.01000201.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-191/12)
2012/C 243/02
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Can the fact that a taxpayer — where there is a prohibition on deduction — has obtained aid in such a manner that this also funds VAT or has obtained additional State aid as compensation for non-deductible VAT be categorised as the passing on of tax according to Community law?










2.


If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be the same if the taxpayer did not receive the aid from a Member State or from the tax authority of a Member State, but instead the aid was paid — pursuant to the contract concluded with the person granting the aid — from European Union aid and the Member State’s central budget?










3.


Can the principles of repayment based on fiscal neutrality and of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment be regarded as satisfied, and the prohibition on unjust enrichment complied with, where — owing to legislation on the right to deduct that is contrary to European Union law — the tax authority of a Member State only upholds the taxpayer’s claim for repayment or damages in relation to that part or proportion not previously funded through the aid referred to in the first two questions?
Council Decision 2012/212/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, consulate, derogation from EU law, diplomatic profession, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2012113EN.01001101.xml










25.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 113/11








            COUNCIL DECISION 2012/212/CFSP
of 23 April 2012
         
amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP (1).












(2)


It is necessary to include a derogation to the asset freeze in Decision 2010/639/CFSP in order to ensure that funds or economic resources can be released or be made available for the official purposes of diplomatic missions or consular posts or international organisations enjoying immunities in accordance with international law.












(3)


Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 3(1) of Decision 2010/639/CFSP, the following point is added:






"(e)


to be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic mission or consular post or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in so far as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic mission or consular post or international organisation.".






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 18.
Case C-190/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland), lodged on 23 April 2012 — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United States, application of the law, corporation tax, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, investment company, legal domicile, national law








C_2012209EN.01000401.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland), lodged on 23 April 2012 — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy
(Case C-190/12)
2012/C 209/05
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 56(1) EC (now Article 63 TFEU) apply to an assessment of the permissibility of the application by a Member State of provisions of national law which draw a distinction between the legal situation of taxable persons in such a way that they grant, as part of a general tax exemption, an exemption from flat-rate corporation tax on dividends received by investment funds established in a Member State of the European Union but do not provide for such an exemption for an investment fund which is resident for tax purposes in the USA?










2.


Can the difference between the treatment of funds established in a non-member country and that of funds established in a Member State of the European Union, as provided for in national law with regard to the exemption relating to corporation tax, be regarded as legally justified in the light of Article 58(1)(a) EC, in conjunction with Article 58(3) EC (now Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 65(3) TFEU)?
Case T-572/11 RII: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim relief — Fresh application — Absence of new facts — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012174EN.01002303.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/23





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council
(Case T-572/11 RII)
(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim relief - Fresh application - Absence of new facts - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 174/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim relief, in particular an application for suspension of operation of the restrictive measures instituted by the Council against Syria, in so far as those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Council Decision 2012/205/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, removal








L_2012110EN.01003501.xml










24.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 110/35








            COUNCIL DECISION 2012/205/CFSP
of 23 April 2012
         
amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.












(2)


The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person and two entities on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.












(3)


The list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The person and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 23 April 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.




ANNEX

Person and entities referred to in Article 1

A Sedghi
Walship SA
Morison Menon Chartered Accountant
Case C-187/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola (SFIR) SpA v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental standard, industrial conversion, industrial restructuring, sugar industry








C_2012194EN.01001301.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola (SFIR) SpA v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
(Case C-187/12)
2012/C 194/20
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola (SFIR) SpA

Respondents: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura

Questions referred

Must the full dismantling of the production facilities for sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, (1) the detailed rules for the implementation of which are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the facilities to be dismantled are those necessary for production, as specifically laid down in the abovementioned Article 3 of the Council regulation, in accordance with which the Commission regulation must itself be interpreted, failing which the latter regulation will be invalid? Consequently, pursuant to the abovementioned Article 3 of Council Regulation No 320/2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation No 968/2006, do the facilities to be dismantled include only those intended for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, and the other facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 968/2006, including packaging facilities, that have been left unused and must be dismantled and removed for environmental reasons? Consequently, may those facilities not linked to the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, and not left unused but used for other activities such as, in this case, packaging, and not subject to the obligation of removal for environmental reasons be kept, because they are not subject to the dismantling obligation under the above Community regulations?


(1)  OJ L 58, p. 42.

(2)  OJ L 176, p. 32.
Case C-189/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Eridania Sadam S.p.A. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental standard, industrial conversion, industrial restructuring, sugar industry








C_2012194EN.01001401.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Eridania Sadam S.p.A. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
(Case C-189/12)
2012/C 194/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Eridania Sadam S.p.A.

Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 (1) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘production facilities’ does not include facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it and that, therefore, in the case of facilities such as silos, it is necessary to complete a case-by-case analysis in order to establish whether those facilities are connected with the ‘production line’ or whether they are connected with other activities, different from production, such as packaging?










2.


In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses?










3.


In the further alternative, in any event, are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) [No 968/2006] of 27 June 2006 valid, by the yardstick of the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, if interpreted as including in the concept of ‘production facilities’ or facilities ‘directly related to … production’ those facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42


(2)  OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32
Case C-185/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Lorenzo Ciampaglia v Sangita Masawan
Date: 2012-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy








C_2012235EN.01000601.xml










4.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Lorenzo Ciampaglia v Sangita Masawan
(Case C-185/12)
2012/C 235/09
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Torre Annunziata

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lorenzo Ciampaglia

Defendant: Sangita Masawan
By order of 3 May 2012, the Court of Justice declared that the reference for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible and removed the case from the register.