do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-108/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014  — Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Nordenham
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, holding company, shareholding, subsidiary, tax harmonisation, tax relief








C_2014159EN.01001201.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014 — Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Nordenham
(Case C-108/14)
2014/C 159/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Nordenham

Questions referred







1.


Which calculation method is to be used to calculate a holding company’s (pro rata) input tax deduction in respect of input supplies connected with the procurement of capital for the purchase of shares in subsidiary companies, if the holding company subsequently (as intended from the outset) provides various taxable services to those companies?










2.


Does the provision on the consolidation of several persons into a single taxable person in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) preclude national legislation under which (firstly) only a legal person, but not a partnership, can be integrated into the undertaking of another taxable person (a so-called ‘Organträger’ (controlling company)) and which (secondly) requires that this legal person ‘is integrated into the undertaking of the Organträger’ in financial, economic and organisational terms (in the sense of a relationship of control and subordination)?










3.


If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: can a taxable person rely directly on the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?






(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, regional aid








C_2014066EN.01001301.xml










6.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/13





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
2014/C 66/10
EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


11 December 2013




Case number


:


74723




Decision number


:


495/13/COL




EFTA State


:


Iceland




Title


:


The prolongation of the Icelandic regional aid map 2007-2013 until 30 June 2014




Legal basis


:


The Authority’s Guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013




Type of measure


:


Regional aid map




Objective


:


Regional aid




Duration


:


1.1.2014-30.6.2014




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, transmission network








C_2014066EN.01000601.xml










6.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/6





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
2014/C 66/05
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


13 November 2013




Case number


:


72904




Decision number


:


444/13/COL




EFTA State


:


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Fjarskiptafélag Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahrepps




Legal basis


:


Article 61(3)(c) EEA Agreement




Type of measure


:


Rapid deployment of broadband networks




Form of aid


:


Direct grant




Budget


:


Approx. ISK 75 million




Intensity


:


100 %




Duration


:


—




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur




Árnesi




801 Selfoss




ICELAND








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case C-77/13: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Quimper — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, consumer protection, credit, interest, interpretation of the law, national law, unfair terms of contract








C_2014184EN.01002303.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/23





Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Quimper — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan
(Case C-77/13) (1)

2014/C 184/35
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, common market, control of State aid, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2014066EN.01000901.xml










6.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/9





Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
2014/C 66/08
PART I








Aid No


GBER 17/13/R&D




EFTA State


Norway




Granting authority


Name


Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway




Address







7. juni-plassen/Victoria Terrasse




PO Box 8114 Dep.




0032 Oslo




NORWAY








Web page


http://www.mfa.no




Title of the aid measure


SARiNOR — Search and Rescue in the High North (ad hoc grant through the Barents 2020 grant scheme)




National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)


Parliamentary appropriation (Prop. 1 S (2012–13))




Web link to the full text of the aid measure


Ad hoc grant under Barents 2020. Information about Barents 2020 may be found at p. 100-101 in Parliamentary appropriation (Prop. 1 S (2012–13)):
http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38072348/PDFS/PRP201220130001_UDDDDPDFS.pdf




Type of measure


Ad hoc aid


Maritimt Forum Nord SA




Date of granting


Ad hoc aid


Duration: 1.11.2013 to 1.11.2016, disbursed in annual installments, subject to parliamentary appropriations




Economic sector(s) concerned


Limited to specific sectors — Please specify in accordance with NACE Rev. 2


Cross-disciplinary research:
NACE 72.19/NACE 72.20




Type of beneficiary


SME


X




Budget


Overall amount of the ad hoc aid awarded to the undertaking


2013-2016: Total NOK 8
(in millions)
To be disbursed in installments as follows:
2013: NOK 0,5
2014: NOK 2,2 (tentative)
2015–16: NOK 5,3 (tentative)




Aid instrument
(Article 5)


Grant


X




PART II









General objectives (list)


Objectives (list)


Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in NOK


SME — bonuses in %




Aid for research, development and innovation
(Articles 30–37)


Aid for research and development projects
(Article 31)


Industrial research
(Article 31(2)(b))


50 %


40 %
Case C-248/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014  — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Admissibility of the action for annulment — Situation of the appellant not directly affected by the contested decision)
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU financing, United Kingdom








C_2014184EN.01000201.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/2





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission
(Case C-248/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Admissibility of the action for annulment - Situation of the appellant not directly affected by the contested decision))
2014/C 184/02
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Donnelly and P. Rossi, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of 6 March 2012 in Case T-453/10 Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU (notified under No C(2010) 4894) of 15 July 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 184, p. 6), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Operative part of the order







1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to pay the costs of this appeal.






(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.
Case C-109/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014  — Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte v Marenave Schiffahrts AG
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, holding company, shareholding, subsidiary, tax harmonisation, tax relief








C_2014159EN.01001301.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014 — Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte v Marenave Schiffahrts AG
(Case C-109/14)
2014/C 159/17
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

Defendant: Marenave Schiffahrts AG

Questions referred







1.


Which calculation method is to be used to calculate a holding company’s (pro rata) input tax deduction in respect of input supplies connected with the procurement of capital for the purchase of shares in subsidiary companies, if the holding company subsequently (as intended from the outset) provides various taxable services to those companies?










2.


Does the provision on the consolidation of several persons into a single taxable person in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) preclude national legislation under which (firstly) only a legal person, but not a partnership, can be integrated into the undertaking of another taxable person (a so-called ‘Organträger’ (controlling company)) and which (secondly) requires that this legal person ‘is integrated into the undertaking of the Organträger’ in financial, economic and organisational terms (in the sense of a relationship of control and subordination)?










3.


If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: can a taxable person rely directly on the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?






(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Case T-71/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ANNAPURNA — Application for annulment filed by the intervener — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the trade mark — Proof of use for the registered goods)
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01003101.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/31





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)
(Case T-71/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ANNAPURNA - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the trade mark - Proof of use for the registered goods))
2014/C 112/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 2409/2011 5), relating to revocation proceedings between Anapurna GmbH and Annapurna SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Rejects Annapurna SpA’s application for annulment;










3.


Orders Anapurna GmbH to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Annapurna SpA;










4.


Orders Annapurna SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014066EN.01000201.xml










6.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 March 2014
2014/C 66/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3732




JPY


Japanese yen


140,71




DKK


Danish krone


7,4626




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82170




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8519




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2186




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,2305




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,353




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,48




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1795




RON


Romanian leu


4,5097




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0310




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5295




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5190




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6574




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6320




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7423




KRW


South Korean won


1 470,67




ZAR


South African rand


14,7362




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4158




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6545




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 910,53




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4932




PHP


Philippine peso


61,498




RUB


Russian rouble


49,4300




THB


Thai baht


44,349




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2156




MXN


Mexican peso


18,1949




INR


Indian rupee


84,8020






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-606/12 and C-607/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale Genova (Italy)) — DresserRand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17(2)(f) — Condition relating to the return of goods to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported)
Date: 2014-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, carriage of goods, provision of services








C_2014129EN.01000502.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale Genova (Italy)) — DresserRand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
(Joined Cases C-606/12 and C-607/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 17(2)(f) - Condition relating to the return of goods to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported))
(2014/C 129/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale Genova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DresserRand SA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transfer to another Member State — ‘Work on the goods’ — Verifying the adaptability to other goods — Condition that the goods be returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported — Possibility of treating the dispatch as constituting a transfer to another Member State in the case of dispatch to a Member State other than that from which they were sent

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for the dispatch or transport of goods not to be classified as a transfer to another Member State, those goods, after the work on them has been carried out in the Member State in which dispatch or transport of the goods ends, must necessarily be returned to the taxable person in the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported.


(1)  
            OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.