do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-377/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Request for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’  — Tribunal Arbitral Tributário — Directive 69/335/EEC — Articles 4 and 7 — Increase of the share capital of a capital company — Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984  — That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced)
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, capital increase, company with share capital, registration tax, tax exemption








C_2014282EN.01001601.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/16





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-377/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Tribunal Arbitral Tributário - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 4 and 7 - Increase of the share capital of a capital company - Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 - That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced))
2014/C 282/21
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1)(c) and 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding the reintroduction by a Member State of capital duty on increases of share capital of a company falling under the first of those provisions, which were subject to such duty on 1 July 1984, but which were later exempted from that duty.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case T-416/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01005501.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/55





Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission
(Case T-416/14)
2014/C 253/72
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grup Maritim TCB, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.
Case C-288/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș (Romania) lodged on 12 June 2014  — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law (EU), infringement of EU law, ownership, tax rebate








C_2014303EN.01001901.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș (Romania) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara
(Case C-288/14)
2014/C 303/25
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Timiș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Silvia Ciup

Defendant: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

Question referred

Can the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of remedies for infringements of EU law, upheld by the case-law of the Court, and the right to property referred to in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law that defer, on the basis of instalments payable over a period of five years, the reimbursement of taxes levied in breach of Community law and reimbursement of interest thereon, such reimbursements having been directed to be made by judgments that became enforceable by 31 December 2015?
Case T-428/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Gasiber 2000 v Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01005701.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/57





Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Gasiber 2000 v Commission
(Case T-428/14)
2014/C 253/76
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Gasiber 2000, SL (Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.
Case T-488/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Sarc v Commission (State aid — Software licence agreement — Decision finding no State aid — Actions for annulment — Competitive position not substantially affected — Inadmissibility — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Admissibility — Failure to initiate formal investigation procedure — No serious difficulties — Advantage)
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, patents licence, rights of the defence, software








C_2014245EN.01000901.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/9





Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Sarc v Commission
(Case T-488/11) (1)

((State aid - Software licence agreement - Decision finding no State aid - Actions for annulment - Competitive position not substantially affected - Inadmissibility - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Admissibility - Failure to initiate formal investigation procedure - No serious difficulties - Advantage))
2014/C 245/11
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV (Bussum, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Speyart and R. Bolhaar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, K. Talabér-Ritz and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by C. Wissels, M. Noort and B. Koopman, and subsequently by C. Wissels, M. Noort, J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents); and Technische Universiteit Delft (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van den Tweel and P. Huurnink, lawyers).

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 relating to the State Aid Proceedings NN 68/2010 — Netherlands, declaring after the preliminary examination stage that the licence agreement for the use of a software source code concluded between Technische Universiteit Delft and Delftship BV does not constitute State aid

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Technische Universiteit Delft;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
Case T-429/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Uriinmuebles v Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01005702.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/57





Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Uriinmuebles v Commission
(Case T-429/14)
2014/C 253/77
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Uriinmuebles, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.
2014/C 182/01: Council Decision of 12 June 2014 appointing an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Lithuania
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Lithuania, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, occupational health








C_2014182EN.01001601.xml










14.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/16





COUNCIL DECISION
of 12 June 2014
appointing an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Lithuania
2014/C 182/04
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decisions of 22 April 2013 (2) and of 2 December 2013 (3), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 22 April 2013 until 28 February 2016.










(2)


The government of Lithuania has submitted a further nomination for a post to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The following person is appointed as an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2016:
III.   EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Member


Alternate




Lithuania


 


Ms Nadežda FILIPOVA




Article 2
The Council will appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 2014.


For the Council


The President

Y. MANIATIS




(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 22 April 2013 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 120, 26.4.2013, p. 7).

(3)  Council Decision of 2 December 2013 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Croatia, Hungary, Portugal and the United Kingdom (OJ C 358, 7.12.2013, p. 3).
Case C-461/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13(B)(d)(3) and (5) — ‘Other securities’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’  — Sales promotion scheme — Discount card — Taxable amount)
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, electronic money, securities, tax exemption








C_2014282EN.01000401.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag
(Case C-461/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13(B)(d)(3) and (5) - ‘Other securities’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Sales promotion scheme - Discount card - Taxable amount))
2014/C 282/05
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Granton Advertising BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(B)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the sale of a discount card, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute a transaction in ‘other securities’ or concerning ‘other negotiable instruments’, within the meaning, respectively, of paragraphs 5 and 3 of that provision, which refers to certain transactions which the Member States must exempt from value added tax.


(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), information technology








C_2014178EN.01003401.xml










12.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/34





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2014/C 178/08
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AST/133/14 — INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICT) (AST 3)
The notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 178 A of 12 June 2014.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
The fundamental rights of people with disabilities : nothing about us without us.
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: disabled person, discrimination based on disability, facilities for people with disabilities, fundamental rights, independence of people with disabilities, integration of people with disabilities, mentally disabled person

linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency n twitter.com/EURightsAgency
fra.europa.eu l info@fra.europa.eu p facebook.com/fundamentalrights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 n 1040 Vienna l Austria p T +43 158030-0 n F +43 158030-699 

disability@fra.europa.eu
and many other issues. To find out more contact FRA at:
FRA works with disabled people’s organisations to help address these 
… deal with stigma, hostility and hate crime?
… exercise their right to participation in political and public life?  
… make their own decisions about their lives? 
… overcome barriers to live independently?
… experience everyday life?
How do people with disabilities: 

FRA and disability rights

-

T
K
-
0
2
-
1
3
-
7
8
1
-
E
N
D
–
D
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
T
p
k
 –
C
a
r
t
o
o
n
s
b
y
C
y
r
i
l

i

i

l

E
o
p
h
e

The fundamental rights 
of people with disabilities

Nothing 
about us 
without us

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The ‘unabling’ model of disability

The enabling model of disability

Are you taking the rights approach?
Case C-290/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, illegal migration, removal, return migration, third country








C_2014292EN.01001801.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj
(Case C-290/14)
2014/C 292/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Party to the main proceedings

Skerdjan Celaj

Question referred

Do the provisions of Directive 2008/115 (1) preclude a Member State’s legislation which provides for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of up to four years on an illegally staying third-country national [Or.10] who, having been returned to his country of origin neither as a criminal law sanction nor as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, has re-entered the territory of the State in breach of a lawful re-entry ban but has not been the subject of the coercive measures provided for by Article 8 of Directive 2008/115 with a view to his swift and effective removal?


(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7188 — Remondis Nederland/SITA Recycling Services/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, economic concentration, merger control, waste management, water management








C_2014178EN.01003501.xml










12.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/35





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7188 — Remondis Nederland/SITA Recycling Services/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 178/09






1.


On 4 June 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Remondis Nederland B.V. (the Netherlands), owned by Remondis AG & Co (‘Remondis Group’, Germany) and ultimately controlled by Rethmann AG & Co. KG (Germany), and SITA Recycling Services B.V., (‘SITA’, the Netherlands), ultimately controlled by Suez Environnement Company SA (France), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created joint venture (‘NewCo’, the Netherlands).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Remondis Group: an international water and environmental service company active, among others, in collection, sorting and recycling of plastic waste,
—   for SITA: active in the Netherlands within the fields of collection, transport and processing of industrial waste, special waste, household waste as well as sewer maintenance and soil sanitation,
—   for NewCo: will be active in the sorting of Dutch household plastic waste.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7188 — Remondis Nederland/SITA Recycling Services/JV 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7216 — Reggeborgh/Argos Energy Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control, oil industry, property development








C_2014178EN.01003601.xml










12.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/36





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7216 — Reggeborgh/Argos Energy Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 178/10






1.


On 4 June 2014, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Reggeborgh Invest B.V. (‘Reggeborgh’, the Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the Argos Group Holding (‘Argos Holding’, the Netherlands), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Reggeborgh: active in trade and supply of petroleum products for land and waterbound use, property development, construction services sector and vessels rental;
—   for Argos Holding: active in north-western Europe in trade and supply of petroleum products for land and waterbound use.










3.


On preliminary examination, the European Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The European Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the European Commission.
Observations must reach the European Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the European Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7216 — Reggeborgh/Argos Energy Group, 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’).