do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-315/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Openbaar Ministerie v Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, administrative formalities, electronic government, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, penalty, single market, social security, subcontracting, traineeship








C_2013252EN.01002101.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Openbaar Ministerie v Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others
(Case C-315/13)
2013/C 252/32
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Edgard Jan De Clercq, Emiel Amede Rosa De Clercq, Nancy Genevieve Wilhelmina Rottiers, Ermelinda Jozef Martha Tampère, Thermotec NV

Question referred

Must the provisions of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU (previously Articles 49 and 50 EC Treaty) and Article 3(1) and 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), whether or not read in conjunction with Article 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36), be interpreted as precluding Article 141 of the Programmawet (I) (Programme Law (I)) of 27 December 2006 under which a person for whom work is performed, either directly or through subcontracting, by posted employees or posted trainees, is placed under an obligation to make a declaration to the Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (National Office for Social Security) by electronic means (or failing that, by fax or by letter), prior to the commencement of the employment of those persons, of the identification data of those persons who do not have the possibility of submitting the acknowledgement of receipt delivered to their employer of his prior declaration, in conjunction with Article 157 of the Programmawet (I) of 27 December 2006 and Article 183(1)(1) of the Sociaal Strafwetboek (Social Criminal Code), which penalises non-compliance with that obligation by criminal sanctions?
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, farming sector, fishing industry, silviculture








C_2013162EN.01000201.xml










7.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/2





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)
2013/C 162/02







Date of adoption of the decision


3.4.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.35809 (13/N)




Member State


Denmark




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Guarantee scheme




Legal basis


Lov nr. 571 af 1. juli 2002 om Vækstfonden, med senere ændringer. Bekendtgørelse nr. 1013 af 17. august 2007 om Vækstfondens virke. Aktstykke nr. 1 vedtaget af Finansudvalget den 30. oktober 2009.




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


—




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


—




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2015




Economic sectors


Agriculture, forestry and fishing




Name and address of the granting authority







Vækstfonden




Strandvejen 104 A




2900 Hellerup




DANMARK








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Case C-313/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, real property








C_2013226EN.01000702.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu
(Case C-313/13)
(2013/C 226/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

Defendant: Cătălin Ienciu

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:






(a)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or










(b)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?






(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-405/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Markets for everyday consumer goods — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Commitments — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer goods, merger control, single market








C_2013225EN.01006101.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/61





Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission
(Case T-405/08) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Markets for everyday consumer goods - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons)
2013/C 225/135
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented initially by A.-H. Bischke, S. Brack and D. Bräunlich, then by A.-H. Bischke and D. Bräunlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and O. Weber, then by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, agents, and by M. Buntscheck, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by H. Wollmann, G. Drauz and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 23 June 2008 declaring the merger whereby Billa AG acquired sole control of Adeg österreich Handels AG compatible with the common market (Case COMP/M.5047 — REWE/ADEG), subject to the proposed commitments being met, pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Billa AG.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
Case T-2/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred in connection with the POSEI measure (financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007))
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGF, Portugal, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2013225EN.01006501.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/65





Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-2/11) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred in connection with the POSEI measure (financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007))
2013/C 225/144
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Rossi, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Portuguese Republic in connection with the POSEI measure in respect of the 2005 to 2007 financial years, for a total amount of EUR 743 251,25.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applies to the Portuguese Republic a financial correction in connection with the POSEI measure in respect of the 2006 and 2007 financial years;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the parties to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
Case C-312/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Claudiu Roșu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală
Date: 2013-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, real property








C_2013226EN.01000701.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Claudiu Roșu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală
(Case C-312/13)
(2013/C 226/11)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Claudiu Roșu

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:






(a)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or










(b)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?






(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).