do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-160/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (5 a Vara Cível) (Portugal) lodged on 4 April 2014 — João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Portuguese State
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, indemnification, interpretation of the law, liquidation, parent company, transfer of businesses, worker information








C_2014175EN.01003001.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/30





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (5a Vara Cível) (Portugal) lodged on 4 April 2014 — João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Portuguese State
(Case C-160/14)
2014/C 175/37
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Varas Cíveis de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others

Defendant: Portuguese State

Questions referred







1.


Must Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) in particular Article 1(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ encompasses a situation in which an undertaking active on the charter flights market is wound up by decision of its majority shareholder, itself an undertaking active in the aviation sector and, in the context of the winding up, the parent company:






(i)-


replaces the company being wound up under aircraft leasing contracts and ongoing charter flight contracts with tour operators;










(ii)-


carries out activities previously pursued by the company being wound up;










(iii)-


re-employs some workers until that point employed by the company being wound up and engages them to perform identical tasks;










(iv)-


receives small equipment from the company being wound up?














2.


Must Article 267 (formerly Article 234 [EC]) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the facts set out in the preceding question and the fact that the lower national courts adjudicating on the case adopted contradictory decisions, the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça was under an obligation to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the question of the correct interpretation of the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC?










3.


Do Community law, in particular, the principles laid down by the Court of Justice in Köbler
 (2) on State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of an infringement of Community law by a national court adjudicating at last instance preclude the application of a national provision which makes a claim for damages against the State conditional upon the adverse decision having first been set aside?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

(2)  C-224/01, EU:C:2003:513
Notice from the Government of Malta concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Malta
Subjects: Malta, extraction of oil, hydrocarbon, petroleum exploration, public contract








C_2014099EN.01003501.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/35





Notice from the Government of Malta concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
2014/C 99/04
Pursuant to the Notice from the Government of Malta concerning the abovementioned Directive published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 May 2013 (2013/C 127/04), the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure hereby notifies that Block 3 of Area 4 and Area 5 are now available for authorisation on a permanent basis under either an exploration licence or an exploration and production licence.
Information regarding this notice may be obtained by contacting the Continental Shelf Department at the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure, Block F, Antonio Maurizio Valperga Street, Floriana, FRN 1700, Malta on the following e-mail address: dgcs.mti@gov.mt
Case C-592/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, VAT, excise duty, interpretation of the law, tax collection








C_2014253EN.01002202.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/22





Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)
(Case C-592/12) (1)

2014/C 253/30
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP M.7171 — Varo Energy/Bayernoil Package)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, Germany, economic concentration, financial services, merger control, oil industry, primary product








C_2014099EN.01000101.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP M.7171 — Varo Energy/Bayernoil Package)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 99/01
On 28 March 2014, 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 language 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7171. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-159/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 April 2014 — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carrier, delivery, goods and services, interpretation of the law, tax evasion, tax relief








C_2014175EN.01002901.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 April 2014 — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-159/14)
2014/C 175/36
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Koela-N’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the ability to dispose of tangible property as owner also includes the right to instruct a carrier to deliver the goods to a third person other than the intended recipient stated on the invoice, and, on that basis, the receipt of the goods by that person on its own constitutes proof of previously effected supplies of goods?










2.


Is Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the goods are not actually in the possession of the direct supplier — regardless of whether the buyer has received the goods — means that the conditions for the existence of a supply under the directive are not satisfied?










3.


Do the fact that the upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not assisted the tax authorities and the non-loading of the goods constitute objective grounds from which it may be inferred that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct is connected with tax fraud?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7218 — Brookfield/APMTNA/APMT Elizabeth) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United States, container, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2014099EN.01003601.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/36





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7218 — Brookfield/APMTNA/APMT Elizabeth)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 99/05






1.


On 27 March 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Brookfield Infrastructure Fund GP II LLC (‘Brookfield’, the United States), ultimately controlled by Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (Canada), and APM Terminals North America Inc. (‘APMTNA’, the United States), ultimately controlled by A.P. Møller-Mærsk A/S (Denmark), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking APM Terminals Elizabeth, LLC (‘APMT Elizabeth’, the United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Brookfield: asset management with investments in property, renewable power, infrastructure and private equity,










—


for APMTNA: operation of container terminals in North America, holding interests in nine terminals in the United States,










—


for APMT Elizabeth: operation of a container terminal in the Elizabeth Container Terminal of the Port of New York.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7218 – Brookfield/APMTNA/APMT Elizabeth, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-493/13: Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative check, national implementing measure, regulation of telecommunications, transmission network








C_2014261EN.01001904.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/19





Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-493/13) (1)

2014/C 261/35
Language of the case: Estonian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014099EN.01000201.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

3 April 2014
2014/C 99/02
1 euro =










 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3771




JPY


Japanese yen


143,12




DKK


Danish krone


7,4648




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82970




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9554




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2209




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,2300




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,432




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,21




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1727




RON


Romanian leu


4,4753




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9493




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4912




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5172




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6826




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6149




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7395




KRW


South Korean won


1 456,88




ZAR


South African rand


14,6628




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5537




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6480




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 582,21




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5223




PHP


Philippine peso


62,021




RUB


Russian rouble


48,9370




THB


Thai baht


44,726




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1356




MXN


Mexican peso


18,0593




INR


Indian rupee


82,8670






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information on the date of signature of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the European satellite navigation programmes
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU programme, Switzerland, cooperation agreement (EU), interim agreement (EU), satellite navigation, signature of an agreement








L_2014101EN.01000101.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 101/1







Information on the date of signature of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the European satellite navigation programmes

On 18 December 2013, the European Union and Switzerland signed the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the European satellite navigation programmes.
The Agreement accordingly applies provisionally from 1 January 2014 pursuant to Article 27.2 thereof.
Case C-162/14: Action brought on 4 April 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, award of contract, infringement of EU law, professional qualifications








C_2014202EN.01001001.xml










30.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/10





Action brought on 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-162/14)
2014/C 202/11
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by maintaining in force grounds for exclusion of economic operators from participation in tendering procedures, as contained in Article 24(1).1 and 1a of the Law governing public contracts (Prawo zamówień publicznych), which go beyond the substantive legal criteria of the exhaustive list of exclusions contained in Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(2) of that directive;










—


Order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds for excluding an economic operator from a tendering procedure by reason of his professional characteristics as laid down in Article 24(1).1 and 1a of the Law governing public contracts, that is to say, because of (i) the fact that that operator occasioned damage, confirmed by a decision having the force of law, by reason of the non-performance or improper performance of a contract, and (ii) the fact that the economic operator was a party to a contract which the contracting authority cancelled, terminated or renounced by reason of circumstances for which that economic operator bears responsibility, go beyond the scope of the grounds for exclusion set out in Article 45(2), in particular Article 45(2)(d), of Directive 2004/18/EC.
The interpretation of the latter ground was the subject-matter of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-465/11 Forposta and ABC Direct Contact. The Court held in that judgment that the term ‘grave professional misconduct’ in Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC has to be construed as covering all wrongful conduct which has an impact on the professional credibility of the operator concerned. The Polish grounds for exclusion, however, are not limited solely to conduct on the part of economic operators which points to wrongful intent or negligence of a certain gravity on their part, but require the contracting authority automatically to exclude the operator concerned without carrying out a prior assessment of the wrongful conduct alleged against him.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014099EN.01000501.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 99/5






REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 099 A/02
Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.






5


 




6


 




11


 




19


 




21


 




26


 




27


 




30


(PL)




35


 




41


(DE/EN/FR)




42


 




43


 




46


 




47


 




48


 




55


 




56


 




60


 




62


 




65


 




73


(DE/EN/FR)




74


 




81


 




88


 




92


(DE/EN/FR)




97


 




98


 




99
Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2012/757/EU of 14 November 2012 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘operation and traffic management’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union and amending Decision 2007/756/EC ( OJ L 345, 15.12.2012 )
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union Agency for Railways, high-speed transport, technical specification, trans-European network, vehicle on rails








L_2014101EN.01001501.xml










4.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 101/15







Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2012/757/EU of 14 November 2012 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘operation and traffic management’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union and amending Decision 2007/756/EC

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 345 of 15 December 2012
)


On page 71, in Annex II, Appendix 6, Part 4 — Coding of the countries in which the vehicles are registered (digits 3-4 and abbreviation):
for:


                     ‘Sweden — SE — 74’
                  
,read:


                     ‘Sweden — S — 74’
                  
.
Case C-27/13: Order of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany)) — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — Advantages granted by a public undertaking operating an airport to a low-cost airline — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure — Obligation of the courts of the Member States to follow the Commission’s assessment in that decision as regards the existence of aid)
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, airport, control of State aid, low cost airline, public sector, reimbursement of aid








C_2014261EN.01000302.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/3





Order of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany)) — Flughafen Lübeck GmbH v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
(Case C-27/13) (1)

((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - State aid - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Advantages granted by a public undertaking operating an airport to a low-cost airline - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Obligation of the courts of the Member States to follow the Commission’s assessment in that decision as regards the existence of aid))
2014/C 261/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holstein Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

Defendant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Operative part of the order







1.


Where, by application of Article 108(3) TFEU, the European Commission has opened the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to a non-notified measure currently being implemented, a national court, hearing an application for the cessation of the implementation of that measure and the recovery of the sums already paid, is required to adopt all the measures necessary to draw the appropriate conclusions from any breach of the obligation to suspend the implementation of that measure.
To that end, the national court may decide either to suspend the implementation of the measure at issue and order the recovery of the sums already paid or to order interim measures in order to safeguard, firstly, the interests of the parties concerned and, secondly, the effectiveness of the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.










2.


A national court cannot, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, stay the proceedings until the closure of the formal investigation procedure.






(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case T-216/14: Action brought on 4 April 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)
Date: 2014-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014194EN.01002801.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/28





Action brought on 4 April 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)
(Case T-216/14)
2014/C 194/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1788/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EXTRA’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69  155

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009