do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-202/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia v H3G SpA.
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, enforcement of ruling, liquidation, principle of proportionality, proof, tax rebate








C_2015262EN.01000202.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia v H3G SpA.
(Case C-202/15)
(2015/C 262/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia

Defendant: H3G SpA

Questions referred







1)


Given that the Italian legislature has exercised the power which is accorded by Article 90(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (and, prior to the adoption of that directive, by Article 1(C)(1) and the second sentence of Article 20(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (2)) in relation to the downward adjustment of the taxable amount and the adjustment of the VAT charged on taxable transactions in cases where the consideration agreed by the parties remains totally or partially unpaid, is it compatible with the principles of proportionality and effectiveness, which are guaranteed by the TFEU, and the principle of neutrality which governs the application of VAT, to impose limits that make it impossible or excessively costly for the taxable person to recover the tax on the consideration which remains totally or partially unpaid?










2)


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principles set out above that a provision — such as Article 26(2) of Presidential Decree 633/1972 — as applied by the tax authority of the EU Member State, makes the right to recover the tax contingent on proof that insolvency or enforcement procedures have been unsuccessfully conducted, even where such procedures may reasonably be deemed to be uneconomic because of the amount of the claim, the prospects of recovery and the costs of the enforcement or insolvency procedures?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Case C-195/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, easement, enforcement of ruling, financial solvency, property tax, tax








C_2015254EN.01000502.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)
(Case C-195/15)
(2015/C 254/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)







Other parties:



Gemeinde Wedemark,
Hannoversche Volksbank eG





Question referred

Does the term ‘right in rem’ in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) include a national rule such as that contained in Paragraph 12 of the Grundsteuergesetz (Law on real property tax, ‘GrStG’) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 77(2) of the Abgabenordnung (Tax Code, ‘AO’), pursuant to which real property tax debts are by operation of law a public charge on real property and the property owner must accept enforcement against the property in that respect?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — CJ v ECDC (Civil service — Contract staff — Fixed term contract — Termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard — Infringement)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, dismissal, indemnification, interest, work contract








C_2015198EN.01004802.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/48





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — CJ v ECDC
(Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Fixed term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard - Infringement))
(2015/C 198/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented: initially by R. Trott, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and subsequently by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re in Case F-159/12:

Application for the annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract, his re-instatement in the service and payment to him of the difference between the emoluments he might have continued to receive and the allowance he receives, with the addition of interest.

Re in Case F-161/12:

Application for payment of damages for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to his dismissal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Annuls the decision of 24 February 2012 of the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control terminating CJ’s contract as a member of the contract staff;










2)


Dismisses the action in Case F-159/12 as to the remainder;










3)


Dismisses the action in Case F-161/12;










4)


Declares that, in Case F-159/12, the parties shall bear their own costs;










5)


Declares that, in Case F-161/12, CJ shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in that case;










6)


Orders CJ, in Case F-159/12, to pay the Tribunal a sum of EUR 2  000 in order to refund part of the avoidable expenditure which the Tribunal was forced to incur.






(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013, p. 26 and OJ C 55, 23.2.2013, p. 27.
Special Report No 5/2015 ‘Are financial instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development area?’
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: development aid, financial instrument, rural development








C_2015142EN.01002302.xml










29.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/23





Special Report No 5/2015 ‘Are financial instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development area?’
(2015/C 142/12)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 5/2015 ‘Are financial instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development area?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7624 — KKR/Comcast/Pentech/Piton/Scottish Enterprise/Shamrock/FanDuel/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advanced technology industry, capital market, economic concentration, economic development, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015142EN.01002401.xml










29.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7624 — KKR/Comcast/Pentech/Piton/Scottish Enterprise/Shamrock/FanDuel/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 142/13)






1.


On 22 April 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which KKR & Co. L. P. (‘KKR’, United States), Comcast Ventures LP and NBC Sports Venture, LLC, belonging to the Comcast group (‘Comcast’, United States), Pentech Fund II L. P. (‘Pentech’, United Kingdom), Piton Capital Venture Fund L. P. (‘Piton’, United Kingdom), Scottish Enterprise (United Kingdom) and Shamrock Capital Growth Fund III, L. P. (‘Shamrock’, United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of FanDuel Limited (‘FanDuel’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KKR: global alternative asset manager and provider of capital market solutions,
—   for Comcast: global media and technology services,
—   for Pentech: venture capital firm,
—   for Piton: venture capital and growth equity firm,
—   for Scottish Enterprise: Scotland’s economic development agency,
—   for Shamrock: investment firm,
—   for FanDuel: online fantasy sports services to North America.










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 this 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 M.7624 — KKR/Comcast/Pentech/Piton/Scottish Enterprise/Shamrock/FanDuel/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.
Case F-78/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — Todorova Androva v Council (Civil Service — Promotion — 2011 promotion year — Not included in the list of officials eligible for promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Two years’ seniority in the grade — Failure to take account of the period of work carried out as a member of the temporary staff — Difference in treatment due to the legal nature of the employment of the workers concerned — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Reliance — Exclusion)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, promotion, temporary employment








C_2015198EN.01004801.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/48





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — Todorova Androva v Council
(Case F-78/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Promotion - 2011 promotion year - Not included in the list of officials eligible for promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Two years’ seniority in the grade - Failure to take account of the period of work carried out as a member of the temporary staff - Difference in treatment due to the legal nature of the employment of the workers concerned - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Reliance - Exclusion))
(2015/C 198/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Viara Todorova Androva (Rhode-Saint-Genese, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Council's decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion in respect of 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Todorova Androva to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012, p. 34.
Case T-717/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SHADOW COMPLEX — Earlier Community word mark BusinessShadow — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2015198EN.01003701.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/37





Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)
(Case T-717/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SHADOW COMPLEX - Earlier Community word mark BusinessShadow - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 198/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chair Entertainment Group LLC (Provo, Utah, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Libelle AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 776/2011 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Libelle AG and Chair Entertainment Group LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that Chair Entertainment Group LLC is to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);










3.


Declares that Libelle AG is to pay its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Case C-201/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Anonimi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis) v Ipourgos Ergasias, Kinonikis Asfalisis kai Kinonikis Allilengiis
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, free movement of capital, job cuts, right of establishment, unemployment








C_2015221EN.01000401.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Anonimi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis) v Ipourgos Ergasias, Kinonikis Asfalisis kai Kinonikis Allilengiis
(Case C-201/15)
(2015/C 221/05)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anonimi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis)

Defendant: Ipourgos Ergasias, Kinonikis Asfalisis kai Kinonikis Allilengiis

Questions referred







1.


Is a national provision, such as Article 5(3) of Law No 1387/1983, which lays down as a condition in order for collective redundancies to be effected in a specific undertaking that the administrative authorities must authorise the redundancies in question on the basis of criteria as to (a) the conditions in the labour market, (b) the situation of the undertaking and (c) the interests of the national economy compatible with Directive 98/59/EC (1) in particular and, more generally, Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is a national provision with the aforementioned content compatible with Directive 98/59/EC in particular and, more generally, Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU if there are serious social reasons, such as an acute economic crisis and very high unemployment?






(1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).
Special Report No 4/2015 ‘Technical assistance: what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural development?’
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: aid to agriculture, development aid, rural development, technical cooperation








C_2015142EN.01002301.xml










29.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/23





Special Report No 4/2015 ‘Technical assistance: what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural development?’
(2015/C 142/11)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 4/2015 ‘Technical assistance: what contribution has it made to agriculture and rural development?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015142EN.01000401.xml










29.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 April 2015
(2015/C 142/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0927




JPY


Japanese yen


130,09




DKK


Danish krone


7,4607




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71500




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3808




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0464




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3920




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,471




HUF


Hungarian forint


301,35




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0015




RON


Romanian leu


4,4026




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9161




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3752




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3188




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4696




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4226




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4433




KRW


South Korean won


1 167,18




ZAR


South African rand


13,0108




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,7806




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5860




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 149,02




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,8755




PHP


Philippine peso


48,320




RUB


Russian rouble


57,0315




THB


Thai baht


35,611




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1786




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7325




INR


Indian rupee


68,9985






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-470/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Market for methacrylates — Fines — Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the infringing conduct of the latter — Full and immediate payment of the fine by the subsidiary — Reduction of the fine imposed on the subsidiary following a judgment of the General Court — Letters from the Commission demanding payment from the parent companies of the amount reimbursed by it to the subsidiary, plus late-payment interest — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Interest on late payment)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical industry, competition policy, fine, interest, parent company, subsidiary








C_2015198EN.01002702.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/27





Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
(Case T-470/11) (1)

((Competition - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the infringing conduct of the latter - Full and immediate payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the fine imposed on the subsidiary following a judgment of the General Court - Letters from the Commission demanding payment from the parent companies of the amount reimbursed by it to the subsidiary, plus late-payment interest - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Interest on late payment))
(2015/C 198/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie) (represented initially by A. Noël-Baron and É. Morgan de Rivery, and subsequently by É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 or, in the alternative, reduction of the amounts claimed or, in the further alternative, annulment the late-payment interest imposed on Elf Aquitaine, in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 in so far as, in those letters, the European Commission imposed on Elf Aquitaine SA late-payment interest in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total SA is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders the Commission to pay two fifths of the costs of Total and Elf Aquitaine and to bear three fifths of its own costs. Total and Elf Aquitaine are ordered to bear three fifths of their own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs of the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.