do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau apply
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Guinea-Bissau, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2016223EN.01000801.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/8





Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau apply
(2016/C 223/09)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annexes II and III to Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/285/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 should continue to apply to those persons.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 377/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned lists should be reconsidered, by 30 April 2017, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) No 377/2012.


(1)  OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 36.

(2)  OJ L 119, 4.5.2012, p. 1.
Case C-121/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari — Italy) — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 101 TFEU — Road transport — Price of road haulage services for hire or reward which may not be lower than the minimum operating costs — Competition — Fixing of costs by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, competition policy, freight rate, national law, operating cost, provision of services, road transport








C_2016326EN.01000501.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/5





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari — Italy) — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio
(Case C-121/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 101 TFEU - Road transport - Price of road haulage services for hire or reward which may not be lower than the minimum operating costs - Competition - Fixing of costs by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport))
(2016/C 326/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salumificio Murru SpA

Defendant: Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

Operative part of the order

Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the price of road haulage services for hire or reward may not be lower than minimum operating costs fixed by a national administration.


(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case C-122/14: Order of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain) — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment v Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Order for payment procedure — Enforcement proceedings)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, jurisdiction, national law, unfair terms of contract








C_2016326EN.01000201.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/2





Order of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain) — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment v Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa
(Case C-122/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Order for payment procedure - Enforcement proceedings))
(2016/C 326/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment

Defendant: Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which do not allow the court dealing with the enforcement of a payment order to determine of its own motion, even though it has all the elements of law and fact necessary for that purpose, the unfairness of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer which gave rise to that order, where, in the absence of opposition to the order by the consumer, the court


(1)  OJ C 159 of 26.5.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8052 — Segro/PSPIB/SELP/Torino DC1) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2016223EN.01000202.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8052 — Segro/PSPIB/SELP/Torino DC1)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 223/04)
On 15 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M8052. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-324/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — VF Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, fiscal policy, principle of legal certainty, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016305EN.01004401.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/44





Action brought on 21 June 2016 — VF Europe v Commission
(Case T-324/16)
(2016/C 305/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VF Europe BVBA (Bornem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
Case T-311/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Siemens Industry Software v Commission
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016305EN.01004101.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/41





Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Siemens Industry Software v Commission
(Case T-311/16)
(2016/C 305/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Siemens Industry Software (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8071 — Goldman Sachs/Continental Bakeries) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biscuit factory, economic concentration, financial services, merger control, pastry-making








C_2016223EN.01000201.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8071 — Goldman Sachs/Continental Bakeries)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 223/03)
On 14 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8071. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8003 — INEOS/INOVYN) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016223EN.01000101.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8003 — INEOS/INOVYN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 223/01)
On 8 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8003. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-393/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Article 169(a) — Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions — Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax — Occasional taxable transactions made in that State — Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company — Input tax paid by that company — Deducted in the Member State of registration
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, commercial transaction, parent company, tax relief, taxable income, taxpayer








C_2016326EN.01000402.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/4





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce
(Case C-393/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Article 169(a) - Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions - Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax - Occasional taxable transactions made in that State - Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company - Input tax paid by that company - Deducted in the Member State of registration)
(2016/C 326/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Defendant: ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce

Operative part of the order

Article 168 and Article 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a branch registered in one Member State for the payment of value added tax for a company established in another Member State and which mainly carries out internal transactions not subject to that tax for that company, but also occasionally transactions taxed in the Member State where it is registered, is entitled to deduct input tax in the latter State charged on goods and services used for the needs of that company’s taxable transactions carried out in the Member State where the branch is established.


(1)  OJ C 337 of 12.10.2015.
Case T-329/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: blood disease, drugs classification, market approval, medicinal product, principle of proportionality








C_2016314EN.01002701.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/27





Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA
(Case T-329/16)
(2016/C 314/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency,

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible and well founded;










—


annul the Contested Acts; and










—


order the European Commission and the EMA to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of an act of the European Commission removing ‘elotuzumab’ from the Union Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or a possible act of the European Commission or the European Medicines Agency determining that the orphan designation criteria for ‘elotuzumab’ were not met any more at the time of marketing authorisation of the medicinal product ‘Empliciti’.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts violate Article 5 (12) (b) of the Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1), in conjunction with the principle of proportionality:






—


First, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, a medicinal product that received a marketing authorisation after the application for marketing authorisation for the orphan medicine, cannot be taken into account under Article 3 (b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000.










—


Second, pursuant to Article 5(12) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the orphan designation can only be withdrawn when the criteria of Article 3 Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 are no longer met.










—


Third, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the EMA and the Commission must apply a standard of proof that supports the objective of the Regulation.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, in conjunction with Article 5(8) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as there is no formal Commission decision.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)
Case C-344/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB v DB Station & Service AG
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, civil procedure, discretionary power, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2016428EN.01000202.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB v DB Station & Service AG
(Case C-344/16)
(2016/C 428/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB

Defendant: DB Station & Service AG

Questions referred







1.


Is a provision of national law under which the user of a railway infrastructure against whom an action has been brought by the infrastructure manager before a civil court for payment of a user charge, or who seeks before that court to secure repayment of user charges already paid, may argue that the charge set by the infrastructure manager is not fair and reasonable compatible with the provisions of the directive (1) concerning the independence of the management of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4(1), (4) and (5)), the principles governing the fixing of charges (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30)?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is a provision of national law compatible with the abovementioned provisions of the directive where, under that provision of national law, the court is entitled and obliged, should it conclude that the charge set is not fair, to determine by judicial decision what charge will instead be payable?






(1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).