do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-480/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 September 2016 — Fidelity Funds v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2016-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, investment company, tax exemption, tax system








C_2016419EN.01003201.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 September 2016 — Fidelity Funds v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-480/16)
(2016/C 419/42)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fidelity Funds

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Intervener: NN (L) SICAV

Question referred

Is a tax regime, such as that in the main proceedings, under which non-Danish undertakings for collective investment covered by Council Directive 85/611/EEC (1) (the UCITS Directive) are taxed at source on dividends from Danish companies, contrary to Article 56 TEC (Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital or Article 49 TEC (Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services, where equivalent Danish undertakings for collective investment can obtain an exemption for tax at source, either because they in fact make a minimum distribution to their members in return for retention of tax at source, or technically a minimum distribution is calculated, on which tax at source is retained in relation to the undertakings’ members?


(1)  Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1453 of 5 September 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq
Date: 2016-09-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Iraq, UN resolution, economic relations, economic resources, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trading operation








L_2016238EN.01000101.xml










6.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 238/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1453
of 5 September 2016
         
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 lists public bodies, corporations and agencies and natural and legal persons, bodies and entities of the previous government of Iraq covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources that were located outside Iraq on the date of 22 May 2003 under that Regulation.












(2)


On 30 August 2016, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove four entities from the list of persons or entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply, with reference to paragraphs 19 and 23 of Resolution 1483(2003) of the United Nations Security Council.












(3)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 September 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 6. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 131/2011 (OJ L 41, 15.2.2011, p. 1).




ANNEX
In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, the following entries are deleted:






(a)









‘5.


Iraqi Airways Company (alias (a) Iraq Airways Company, (b) Iraqi Airways, (c) Iraq Airways, (d) IAC, (e) I.A.C.).’;















(b)









‘29.


DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF GOVERNORATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION. Address: P.O. Box 20107, New Baghdad Aqaba Bin Nafii Square, Baghdad, Iraq.’;















(c)









‘35.


ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY. Address: P.O. Box 11359, Za'afaraniya, Baghdad, Iraq.’;















(d)









‘74.


LIGHT INDUSTRIES COMPANY. Address: P.O. Box 164 Baghdad, Za'Afaraniya, Baghdad, Iraq.’.
Case T-636/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v Commission
Date: 2016-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, coffee, control of State aid








C_2016462EN.01002501.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/25





Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v Commission
(Case T-636/16)
(2016/C 462/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Petite and M-A. Stroungi, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 on State Aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks (‘the contested decision’);










—


in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference framework for purposes of assessing whether the APA confers a selective advantage.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the APA conferred an advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) by wrongly quantifying the alleged aid, thereby committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment.






(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-630/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
Date: 2016-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid to undertakings, large business, medium-sized business, payment, principle of legal certainty








C_2016402EN.01005302.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/53





Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
(Case T-630/16)
(2016/C 402/63)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat, s.r.o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul and declare to be invalid the decision of the European Chemicals Agency of 7 July 2016, according to which the applicant is to continue to be considered a large enterprise and as a result of which the applicant is not entitled to the fee reduction for a medium-sized enterprise, and allow the implementation of that decision to be deferred.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, the defendant by the abovementioned decision and its actions misused its power and infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty.
The applicant claims that in verifying the status of a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), the defendant incorrectly assessed the independence of the applicant’s enterprise and incorrectly included in the calculation a number of employees and an amount of the applicant’s enterprise’s annual turnover plus allegedly linked or partner enterprises, which are not linked with the applicant’s enterprise or its partner enterprises under Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 or Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.
The applicant submits that its declaration as to the incorrect size of the enterprise, which it made at the defendant’s request dated 2 June 2016, was essentially made with confidence in the defendant’s assessment and with the promise of a lower fee.
The applicant points out that its registration had been suspended and it had expressly informed the defendant that it has not produced the relevant products (substances subject to registration) since 2011.
The applicant claims that it follows from Article 13(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 that the right to a fee reduction on registration arises where it is possible to demonstrate such an entitlement and that it is thus appropriate, contrary to what is contended by the defendant, to allow the applicant to establish that entitlement.