do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-337/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture








C_2016326EN.01001102.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/11





Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission
(Case C-337/16 P)
(2016/C 326/21)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;










—


Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.










—


Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

First argument

Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

Second argument

Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

First argument

The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

Second argument

The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings
Case C-511/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court, Bologna — Italy) — Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Article 3(1)(b) — Conditions for certification — Judgment in default — Concept of ‘uncontested claim — Procedural conduct of a party capable of constituting an ‘absence of contestation of the claim’)
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2016305EN.01000601.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court, Bologna — Italy) — Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd
(Case C-511/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Article 3(1)(b) - Conditions for certification - Judgment in default - Concept of ‘uncontested claim - Procedural conduct of a party capable of constituting an ‘absence of contestation of the claim’))
(2016/C 305/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pebros Servizi Srl

Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The conditions according to which, in the case of a judgment by default, a claim is to be regarded as ‘uncontested’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, must be assessed autonomously, solely in accordance with that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case C-338/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-551/15 Portugal v Commission
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture








C_2016326EN.01001201.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/12





Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-551/15 Portugal v Commission
(Case C-338/16 P)
(2016/C 326/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;










—


Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.










—


Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

First argument

Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

Second argument

Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

First argument

The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

Second argument

The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings
Case C-96/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — France) — Saint Louis Sucre, formerly Saint Louis Sucre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Right to reimbursement — Sugar held in stock and not exported — Undue enrichment — Freedom to conduct a business — Method of calculation)
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural quota, common organisation of markets, right of establishment, sugar, sugar levy








C_2016305EN.01000801.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — France) — Saint Louis Sucre, formerly Saint Louis Sucre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
(Case C-96/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Right to reimbursement - Sugar held in stock and not exported - Undue enrichment - Freedom to conduct a business - Method of calculation))
(2016/C 305/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre, formerly Saint Louis Sucre SA

Defendant: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer on a sugar producer the right to be reimbursed for production levies paid on the quantities of sugar under A and B quotas which were still stored on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.










2.


No factors have been disclosed capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years.






(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
Case T-176/15: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016314EN.01003503.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/35





Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council
(Case T-176/15) (1)

(2016/C 314/49)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8070 — Bancopopular-e/Assets of Barclays Bank) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic money, financial services, insurance, merger control








C_2016216EN.01001401.xml










16.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8070 — Bancopopular-e/Assets of Barclays Bank)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 216/11)






1.


On 9 June 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed acquisition pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Bancopopular-e SA (‘E-Com’ or the ‘Acquirer’) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the Barclays’ payment card business in Spain and Portugal (the ‘Target’) from Barclays Bank PLC (‘Barclays’ or the ‘Seller’).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


E-Com provides services related to the issuing of payment cards in Spain. To a lesser extent, it also provides insurance mediation services and insurance distribution within the Spanish market. E-Com is joint venture jointly controlled by Banco Popular and certain private affiliated funds managed by Värde Partners Inc. (‘Värde’),










—


the Target comprises Barclays’ credit cards business in Portugal and Spain consisting of the origination, marketing and servicing of consumer credit accounts, consumer credit cards, consumer credit card products, consumer credit card payment products and consumer credit card lending. Additionally, the Target has a marginal presence in the market for the distribution of insurance services in Spain and Portugal.














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 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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.8070 — Bancopopular-e/Assets of Barclays Bank, 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-229/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 18(c), 184 and 187 — Taxable transactions — Cessation of the taxable economic activity — Retention of goods on which VAT became deductible — Adjustment of deductions — Adjustment period — Taxation pursuant to Article 18(c) of Directive 2006/112 on expiry of the adjustment period)
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, cessation of trading, goods and services, tax relief








C_2016305EN.01001002.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/10





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak
(Case C-229/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 18(c), 184 and 187 - Taxable transactions - Cessation of the taxable economic activity - Retention of goods on which VAT became deductible - Adjustment of deductions - Adjustment period - Taxation pursuant to Article 18(c) of Directive 2006/112 on expiry of the adjustment period))
(2016/C 305/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Jan Mateusiak

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a taxable person ceases to carry out a taxable economic activity, the retention of goods by that taxable person, where valued added tax on such goods became deductible upon their acquisition, can be treated as a supply of goods for consideration and be subject to value added tax if the adjustment period laid down in Article 187 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, has passed.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case C-154/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG v European Commission, Gigaset AG (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Articles 12 and 14 — Right to be heard — In camera hearing)
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, cartel, exchange of information, market-sharing agreement, powder metallurgy, price agreement, rights of the defence, trade information








C_2016305EN.01000201.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG v European Commission, Gigaset AG
(Case C-154/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Articles 12 and 14 - Right to be heard - In camera hearing))
(2016/C 305/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG (represented by: A. Birnstiel and S. Janka, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Gigaset AG, formerly Arques Industries AG

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG to pay the costs of the European Commission and to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
Council Decision of 16 June 2016 renewing the term of office of the alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, alternate, appointment of members








C_2016223EN.01000501.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/5





COUNCIL DECISION
of 16 June 2016
renewing the term of office of the alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office
(2016/C 223/06)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1), and in particular Article 47(1) thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


By Decision of 12 July 2011 (2), the Council appointed Ms Sari Kaarina HAUKKA as alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (the ‘Office’).










(2)


The term of office of Ms Sari Kaarina HAUKKA is to expire on 14 October 2016.










(3)


On 4 May 2016, after obtaining the favourable opinion of the Administrative Council of the Office, the Commission proposed that the term of office of Ms Sari Kaarina HAUKKA be renewed,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The term of office of Ms Sari Kaarina HAUKKA as alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office is hereby renewed for a period of 5 years with effect from 15 October 2016.
Article 2
The Chairperson of the Administrative Council of the Office shall be empowered to provide for all the arrangements necessary to implement Article 1.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 16 June 2016.


For the Council


The President

L. F. ASSCHER




(1)  OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 12 July 2011 appointing the alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ C 209, 15.7.2011, p. 17).
Case C-340/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 June 2016 — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft-KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD SA (MMA IARD)
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, employer, indemnification, insurance company, jurisdiction, public institution, remuneration of work, staff, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2016305EN.01001801.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 June 2016 — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft-KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD SA (MMA IARD)
(Case C-340/16)
(2016/C 305/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft-KABEG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD SA (MMA IARD)

Questions referred







1.


Is the action brought by an employer established in Austria seeking compensation for the damage passed on to that employer as a result of the continued payment of remuneration to its employee domiciled in Austria a ‘matter relating to insurance’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) in the case where






(a)


the employee was injured in a road traffic accident in a Member State (Italy),










(b)


the action is brought against the civil-liability insurer, domiciled in another Member State (France), of the vehicle at fault, and










(c)


the employer is established as a public-law institution with legal personality?














2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Should Article 9(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 11(2), of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the employer which has continued to pay remuneration can, as an ‘injured party’, sue the civil-liability insurer of the vehicle at fault in the courts for the place where the employer is domiciled, in so far as such a direct action is permitted?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Notification on behalf of the Irish Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of Gas Networks Ireland as a Transmission System Operator — Gas TSO
Date: 2016-06-16
Institutions: Ireland
Subjects: Ireland, domestic market, energy transport, gas supply, natural gas, private sector, public contract








C_2016216EN.01000601.xml










16.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/6





Notification on behalf of the Irish Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of Gas Networks Ireland as a Transmission System Operator — Gas TSO
(2016/C 216/03)
Following the certification of Gas Networks Ireland as Ownership Unbundled Transmission System Operator (Article 9 of the Gas Directive), the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER), as Ireland’s National Regulatory Authority, has notified to the Commission the official approval and designation of this company as a Transmission System Operator operating in accordance with Article 10 of the Gas Directive.
Any additional information can be obtained at the following address:
http://www.cer.ie/ (Ref: CER/16/113)