do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-349/16: Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, abuse of power, bank, economic sanctions, equal treatment, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2016305EN.01004801.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/48





Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council
(Case T-349/16)
(2016/C 305/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bank Saderat Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister and S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/603 of 18 April 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 8), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/609 of 18 April 2016, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 19), insofar as they apply to the applicant, and










—


order the Council pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is (i) an abuse of process and as such a misuse of powers, (ii) contrary to the Applicant’s rights to good administration and (iii) contrary to the principles of res judicata, legal certainty and finality.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is in violation of Article 266 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 violates the applicant’s fundamental rights to respect for its reputation and peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is not required by and is contrary to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Case C-55/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Common system of value added tax — Right to reimbursement — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Conditions for obtaining reimbursement — Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 — Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax — Whether permissible)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax law, tax rebate








C_2016343EN.01001702.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/17





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești
(Case C-55/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common system of value added tax - Right to reimbursement - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Conditions for obtaining reimbursement - Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 - Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax - Whether permissible))
(2016/C 343/27)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Evo Bus GmbH

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

Operative part of the order

Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of value added tax, taxable persons are subject to a general obligation to provide proof of payment of that tax.


(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Case C-669/15: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Preliminary ruling — Absence of legal framework — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, decree, legality








C_2016343EN.01001602.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/16





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
(Case C-669/15) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Absence of legal framework - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
(2016/C 343/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

Defendant: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Cour d'appel de Versailles (France), by decision of 8 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the Republic of Finland of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Finland, action programme, air quality, industrial pollution, marine pollution, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste incineration








C_2017048EN.01000201.xml










15.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/2





Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the Republic of Finland of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions
(2017/C 48/02)
On 30 June 2016, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2016) 3942 on the notification by the Republic of Finland of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (1).
This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee


(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, rubber industry, vehicle parts








C_2016236EN.01000101.xml










30.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 236/01)
On 22 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 32016M8039. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-178/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Teachers — Convalescence leave — Annual leave coinciding with convalescence leave — Right to take the annual leave in another period)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, paid leave, teacher








C_2016335EN.01001701.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/17





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie
(Case C-178/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Teachers - Convalescence leave - Annual leave coinciding with convalescence leave - Right to take the annual leave in another period))
(2016/C 335/22)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alicja Sobczyszyn

Defendant: Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a worker who is on convalescence leave, granted in accordance with national law, during the period of annual leave scheduled in the leave roster of the establishment where he is employed may be refused, at the end of his convalescence leave, the right to take his paid annual leave in a subsequent period, provided that the purpose of the right to convalescence leave is different from that of the right to annual leave, a matter which is for the national court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Case C-134/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Sachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Marketing standards — Fresh pre-packaged poultrymeat — Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality — Second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU — Non-discrimination)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, common organisation of markets, consumer information, equal treatment, labelling, poultrymeat, retail trade, right of establishment, right to work








C_2016335EN.01001601.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/16





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Sachsen
(Case C-134/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Marketing standards - Fresh pre-packaged poultrymeat - Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU - Non-discrimination))
(2016/C 335/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lidl GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Consideration of the first question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5(4)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat, in the light of the freedom to conduct a business, as provided by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Consideration of the second question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU.






(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Case C-363/16: Action brought on 30 June 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, credit guarantee, reimbursement of aid, social security, textile industry








C_2016305EN.01001901.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/19





Action brought on 30 June 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-363/16)
(2016/C 305/27)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Α. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take within the prescribed time-limits all the measures required for the implementation of Commission Decision of 22 February 2012 in case SA.26534 (C 27/2010 ex ΝΝ 6/2009) on the State aid granted by Greece to United Textiles or, in any event, by failing adequately to inform the Commission of the measures taken in accordance with Article 4 of the decision, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Pursuant to the European Commission Decision of 22 February 2012 in case SA.26534, the Hellenic Republic is required to recover within four months the aid incompatible with the internal market which it granted to United Textiles, that is the State guarantee in 2007 and the rescheduling of overdue debts for social insurance contributions in 2009, and is also required adequately to inform the European Commission of the measures taken to that end.










2.


However, the Hellenic Republic did not recover the aid at issue within four months, as it was required to do. In addition, the Hellenic Republic continues to be in breach of its obligation to take the required measures to implement the decision. By Decree-Law of 30 December 2015 the Greek authorities extended by six months the public auction procedure for the sale of assets of United Textiles with a view to investigating the possible resumption of its operations, without the aid incompatible with the internal market having been recovered. In any event, the Hellenic Republic has failed adequately to inform the European Commission of the relevant measures for the implementation of the decision.
Case C-123/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Max-Heinz Feilen v Finanzamt Fulda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Free movement of capital — Inheritance tax — Legislation of a Member State providing for a reduction in inheritance tax applicable to estates containing assets which have already formed part of an inheritance giving rise to the imposition of inheritance tax in that Member State — Restriction — Justification — Coherence of the tax system)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: acquisition of property, capital transfer tax, free movement of capital, tax relief








C_2016335EN.01001501.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/15





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Max-Heinz Feilen v Finanzamt Fulda
(Case C-123/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Free movement of capital - Inheritance tax - Legislation of a Member State providing for a reduction in inheritance tax applicable to estates containing assets which have already formed part of an inheritance giving rise to the imposition of inheritance tax in that Member State - Restriction - Justification - Coherence of the tax system))
(2016/C 335/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Max-Heinz Feilen

Respondent: Finanzamt Fulda

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63(1) TFEU and 65 TFEU do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a reduction in inheritance tax in the case of inheritance by persons within a particular tax class where the estate includes assets that had already been acquired, by way of inheritance, by persons within that tax class during the 10 years prior to the acquisition, on condition that inheritance tax was levied in that Member State in respect of that earlier acquisition.


(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building services, cleaning industry, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services








C_2016236EN.01000201.xml










30.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 236/03)
On 23 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 32016M8041. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-176/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Article 4 TEU — Direct taxation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Third State — Scope)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bilateral agreement, direct tax, double taxation, free movement of capital, national law, residence, shareholder, shareholding, tax convention, third country








C_2016335EN.01001602.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/16





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge
(Case C-176/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Article 4 TEU - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Third State - Scope))
(2016/C 335/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from not extending, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the benefit of the advantageous treatment accorded to a resident shareholder as a result of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded between that Member State and a third State — by which tax deducted at source by the third State is allowed unconditionally as a credit against tax payable in the shareholder’s Member State of residence — to a resident shareholder in receipt of dividends from a Member State with which that Member State of residence has concluded a bilateral double taxation convention under which the granting of such a set-off is subject to compliance with additional conditions provided for by national law.


(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2016236EN.01000102.xml










30.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 236/02)
On 23 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 32016M8049. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.