do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-363/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Zoetis Belgium v Commission
Date: 2016-07-07
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.01005002.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/50





Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Zoetis Belgium v Commission
(Case T-363/16)
(2016/C 305/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zoetis Belgium (Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, 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 C-374/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany lodged on 7 July 2016 — RGEX GmbH, in liquidation, represented by Rochus Geissel, liquidator v Finanzamt Neuss
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business location, invoicing, supply, tax relief








C_2016392EN.01000501.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany lodged on 7 July 2016 — RGEX GmbH, in liquidation, represented by Rochus Geissel, liquidator v Finanzamt Neuss
(Case C-374/16)
(2016/C 392/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RGEX GmbH, in liquidation, represented by Rochus Geissel, liquidator

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss

Questions referred







1.


Does an invoice required by Article 168(a) in conjunction with Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in order to exercise a right of deduction contain a ‘full address’ within the meaning of Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in the invoice he issues in relation to the supply, the taxable person making the supply gives an address by which he may be reached by post but where he does not carry out any economic activity?










2.


Having regard to the principle of effectiveness, does Article 168(a) in conjunction with Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a national practice which takes into account good faith on the part of the recipient of a supply in the satisfaction of the requirements for the right to deduct input tax only outside the tax assessment procedure, within the framework of a special equitable procedure? In that regard may Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be relied upon?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-129/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — H.M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(9) — Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ — Hospital set up to make a profit, whose capital is entirely private — Over 50 % or 30 % of income coming from payments by the public sickness insurance scheme in exchange for the provision of medical services — Article 7(b) — Estimated value of the contract — Threshold not met — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Article 53(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: economic value, freedom to provide services, health insurance, medical institution, profit, public institution, right of establishment, supplies contract








C_2016343EN.01001001.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/10





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — H.M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)
(Case C-129/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(9) - Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ - Hospital set up to make a profit, whose capital is entirely private - Over 50 % or 30 % of income coming from payments by the public sickness insurance scheme in exchange for the provision of medical services - Article 7(b) - Estimated value of the contract - Threshold not met - Certain cross-border interest - Lack of information - Article 53(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2016/C 343/13)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: H.M.

Defendant: Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria) by decision of 4 March 2015 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.