do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015350EN.01000402.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/4





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 350/07)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


19.9.2015




Duration


19.9-31.12.2015




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


HKE/8ABDE.




Species


Hake (Merluccius merluccius)




Zone


VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


48/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-277/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, invoicing, tax offence, tax relief








C_2015414EN.01000701.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/7





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
(Case C-277/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent))
(2015/C 414/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a taxable person is not allowed to deduct the value added tax due or paid in respect of goods that were delivered to him on the grounds that the invoice was issued by a trader which is to be regarded, in the light of the criteria provided by that legislation, as a non-existent trader, and that it is impossible to determine the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, except where it is established, on the basis of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case C-194/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — AC Treuhand AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European tin stabiliser and ESBO/esters heat stabiliser markets — Article 81(1) EC — Scope — Consultancy firm not operating on the relevant markets — Definition of ‘agreement between undertakings’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Calculation of the amount of fines — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, chemical industry, competition, consultancy, control of restrictive practices, fine, inter-company agreement, price agreement








C_2015414EN.01000501.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — AC Treuhand AG v European Commission
(Case C-194/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European tin stabiliser and ESBO/esters heat stabiliser markets - Article 81(1) EC - Scope - Consultancy firm not operating on the relevant markets - Definition of ‘agreement between undertakings’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Calculation of the amount of fines - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2015/C 414/06)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: AC Treuhand AG (represented by: C. Steinle, I. Bodenstein and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
Case C-264/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2(1)(c) and 135(1)(d) to (f) — Services for consideration — Transactions to exchange the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency for traditional currencies — Exemption)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, exchange rate, exchange transaction, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2015414EN.01000601.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist
(Case C-264/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c) and 135(1)(d) to (f) - Services for consideration - Transactions to exchange the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency for traditional currencies - Exemption))
(2015/C 414/08)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: David Hedqvist

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of traditional currency for units of the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency and vice versa, in return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the price paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, constitute the supply of services for consideration within the meaning of that article.










2.


Article 135(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of traditional currencies for units of the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency and vice versa, performed in return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the price paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, are transactions exempt from VAT, within the meaning of that provision.
Article 135(1)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that such a supply of services does not fall within the scope of application of those provisions.






(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7766 — HNA Group/Aguila) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2015350EN.01000901.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7766 — HNA Group/Aguila)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 350/12)






1.


On 15 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which HNA Group Co., Ltd (‘HNA Group’, China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Aguila 2 SA, the holding company of the Swissport group of companies (together with its subsidiaries, ‘Swissport’, Luxembourg), by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


HNA Group: conglomerate encompassing core divisions of aviation, holdings, capital, tourism and logistics. Through its HNA Aviation division, HNA Group manages aviation related enterprises, with a focus on China and the Asia region. HNA Group, through its controlled airlines, is active at a number of airports in the EEA,










—


Swissport is a provider of airport ground handling, cargo handling, and related services, to airlines in Europe and abroad.














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.










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.7766 — HNA Group/Aguila, 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’).
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 140/2014 of 13 February 2014 approving the active substance spinetoram, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 44, 14.2.2014)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: insecticide, market approval, plant health control








L_2015277EN.01006001.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 277/60







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 140/2014 of 13 February 2014 approving the active substance spinetoram, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 44 of 14 February 2014
)


On page 39, in Annex II concerning the amendment to be made to Part B of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, in the seventh column headed ‘Specific provisions’, in the fifth paragraph:
for:

               ‘by 31 December 2014
               ’,
read:

               ‘within 6 months after the adoption of pertinent guidance on the assessment of isomers’.
Case T-80/15 P: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, termination of a contract








C_2015429EN.01002602.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/26





Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission
(Case T-80/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Interest of the service - Duty of care - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2015/C 429/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Macchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Macchia v Commission, F-63/11 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:272, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Luigi Macchia shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present instance.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case C-245/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Late statement of opposition — Article 20(2) — Application for review of the European order for payment — Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin — European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation — Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued — No ‘exceptional’ circumstances)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, claim, injunction, judicial review, jurisdiction








C_2015414EN.01000502.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/5





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH
(Case C-245/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Late statement of opposition - Article 20(2) - Application for review of the European order for payment - Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin - European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation - Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued - No ‘exceptional’ circumstances))
(2015/C 414/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

Defendant: Thurner Hotel GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 2012, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a defendant on whom a European order for payment has been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015350EN.01000401.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/4





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 350/06)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


19.9.2015




Duration


19.9-31.12.2015




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


ANF/8ABDE.




Species


Anglerfish (Lophiidae)




Zone


VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


49/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-130/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Council v Simpson (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Advancement in grade — Classification in grade — Decision not to award the person concerned grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative competition, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, promotion, proof








C_2015414EN.01002801.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/28





Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Council v Simpson
(Case T-130/14) (1)

((Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Advancement in grade - Classification in grade - Decision not to award the person concerned grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Distortion of the evidence))
(2015/C 414/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:201), and seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F-142/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:201), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused the request of Mr Erik Simpson which sought an upgrade to grade AD 9 on the ground that he had passed Competition EPSO/AD/113/07 and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all the costs (paragraphs 1 and 3 of the operative part of that judgment);










2.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case C-126/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Sveda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right of deduction — Deduction of input VAT on the acquisition or production of capital goods — Recreational path directly intended for use by the public free of charge — Use of the recreational path as a means of carrying out taxed transactions)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax harmonisation, tax relief








C_2015414EN.01000302.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Sveda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-126/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Deduction of input VAT on the acquisition or production of capital goods - Recreational path directly intended for use by the public free of charge - Use of the recreational path as a means of carrying out taxed transactions))
(2015/C 414/04)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Sveda’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as granting, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person the right to deduct the input value added tax paid for the acquisition or production of capital goods, for the purposes of a planned economic activity related to rural and recreational tourism, which are (i) directly intended for use by the public free of charge, and may (ii) enable taxed transactions to be carried out, provided that a direct and immediate link is established between the expenses associated with the input transactions and an output transaction or transactions giving rise to the right to deduct or with the taxable person’s economic activity as a whole, which is a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of objective evidence.


(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
Case T-309/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon v OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ELMA — Earlier Community word mark ELMEX — Refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015406EN.01002901.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/29






Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon v OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA)
(Case T-309/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ELMA - Earlier Community word mark ELMEX - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 406/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gaba International Holding GmbH (Therwil, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Schindler, M. Zintler and P. Nagel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1539/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gaba International Holding GmbH and Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 2263, 3.8.2013.