do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-431/16: Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: application of EU law, competition policy








C_2016371EN.01001602.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/16





Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission
(Case T-431/16)
(2016/C 371/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Bramerdorfer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 May 2016 (Case AT.40231 — VIMC/WK&FGB); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 3351 final of 27 May 2016, by which the applicant’s complaint was rejected on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.
In this connection, the applicant submits that the application or non-application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is not within the Commission’s power of discretion. On the contrary, it argues, the Commission must take into account the particular circumstances of each case and cannot, on the basis of that provision and without further clarification, reject a matter already under examination by a national authority.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Case C-427/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD v Yordan Kotsev
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, VAT, freedom to provide services, lawyer, liberal profession, professional society, remuneration of work, right of establishment, self-employment








C_2016371EN.01000601.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD v Yordan Kotsev
(Case C-427/16)
(2016/C 371/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD

Defendant: Yordan Kotsev

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?










4.


Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?










5.


Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?










6.


Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?










7.


Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?






(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case F-20/16: Action brought on 1 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU)








C_2016383EN.01003201.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/32





Action brought on 1 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-20/16)
(2016/C 383/42)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Żołyniak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013 of 27 May 2014 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list.

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Civil Service Tribunal to:






—


annul the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013 of 27 May 2014 refusing to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list;










—


require the appointing authority to implement the judgment by adding the applicant’s name to the reserve list established on the basis of that open competition subject to the period of validity of the addition being equal to the period of validity of the list;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the parties in accordance with the prescribed rules.
Case C-428/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Frontex International’ ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, VAT, freedom to provide services, lawyer, liberal profession, professional society, remuneration of work, right of establishment, self-employment








C_2016371EN.01000602.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Frontex International’ ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev
(Case C-428/16)
(2016/C 371/08)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Frontex International’ ЕАD

Defendant: Emil Yanakiev

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?










4.


Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?










5.


Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?










6.


Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?










7.


Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?






(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case F-23/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Mario Animali and Others v European Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004401.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/44






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Mario Animali and Others v European Commission
(Case F-23/13) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Mario Animali and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, and subsequently by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and finally by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the decision transmitting the definitive calculation of the annuities for the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme under the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013, p. 55.
Case F-117/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 –Cat v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision recognising bonus annuities applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01005201.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/52






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 –Cat v Commission
(Case F-117/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising bonus annuities applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Michel Cat (Cotonou, Benin) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to add years of pensionable service acquired by the applicant in the European Union pension scheme on application of the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 56.