do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-530/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2014 in Case T-425/11 Greece v Commission
Date: 2014-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, economic consequence, equal treatment, gaming establishment, price disparity








C_2015026EN.01001902.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/19





Appeal brought on 21 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2014 in Case T-425/11 Greece v Commission

(Case C-530/14 P)
(2015/C 026/23)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.J. Loewenthal)

Other party to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014, notified to the Commission on 12 September 2014, in Case Τ-425/11 Greece v Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2014:768);










—


refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule again;










—


reserve the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on a single ground: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that the contested measure did not provide any advantage for the public casinos. The single ground of appeal advanced by the Commission has three parts.
First, in paragraphs 52 to 58 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that the public casinos did not enjoy an advantage from the payment of a lower tax for each entering customer on the basis of the contested measure, since the amounts paid represented 80 % of the mandatory entry fees which were charged by both the private and public casinos.
Second, in paragraphs 59 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that it was not sufficient for the Commission to define the advantage of the contested measures as direct (de jure) tax discrimination, but that the Commission was obliged to base the existence of an advantage on an economic analysis of the effects of the contested measure.
Third, in paragraphs 74 to 80 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that (i) the practice of free entry could not confirm the advantage of the contested measure since that measure did not provide any advantage and (ii) before that argument could be effective the Commission was bound to provide evidence that in practice the number of free entries granted was excessively high in comparison with the objectives of the Greek legislation which permitted that practice, so as to be incompatible with the conditions of that national legislation.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Repeal of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, air transport, inland transport, public service, transport regulations








C_2014417EN.01001001.xml










21.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/10





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Repeal of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 417/07






Member State


Italy




Routes concerned


Crotone–Milan Linate and vice versa
Crotone–Rome Fiumicino and vice versa.




Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations


30 June 2014




Date of repeal


22 October 2014




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained



Reference document


OJ C 56, 27.2.2014, p. 4.
For further information, please contact:





Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport




Directorate-General for Airports and Air Transport




Viale dell'Arte, 16




00144 Roma (RM)




ITALIA




Tel. +39 0659084908/4041/4350




Fax +39 0659083280




E-mail: segreteria_dgata@mit.gov.it




Internet: http://www.mit.gov.it
Case C-527/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2014  — Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche and Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2014-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, family migration, foreign language








C_2015026EN.01001901.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2014 — Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche and Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-527/14)
(2015/C 026/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche and Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Other parties: Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Potsdam, Emeka Emmanuel Mary Oruche

Question referred

Should the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a sponsor conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Case C-528/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 November 2014  — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, exemption from customs duties, import (EU), legal person, residence, third country








C_2015056EN.01000502.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 November 2014 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-528/14)
(2015/C 056/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: X

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1)


Does Regulation 1186/2009 (1) include the possibility that a natural person has at the same time his normal place of residence in both a Member State and a third country and, if so, does the relief from import duties provided for in Article 3 apply to personal property, which, when a person ceases to have his normal place of residence in the third country, is transferred to the European Union?










2)


If Regulation 1186/2009 precludes two normal places of residence and an assessment of all the circumstances does not suffice to determine the normal place of residence, on the basis of which rule or which criteria is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of the application of that regulation, in which country the person concerned has his normal place of residence in a case such as the present case in which that person has both personal and occupational ties in the third country and personal ties in the Member State?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23).