do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-395/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — ECDC v CJ (Appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard)
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appeal, contract staff, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment








C_2016419EN.01004101.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/41





Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — ECDC v CJ
(Case T-395/15) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard))
(2016/C 419/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case C-412/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 132(1)(d) — Supplies of human organs, blood and milk — Scope — Plasma of human blood transformed and used for industrial purposes)
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, pharmaceutical industry, tax exemption








C_2016441EN.01000302.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/3






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar
(Case C-412/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 132(1)(d) - Supplies of human organs, blood and milk - Scope - Plasma of human blood transformed and used for industrial purposes))
(2016/C 441/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that supplies of human blood which Member States are required to exempt by virtue of that provision do not include supplies of plasma obtained from human blood where that plasma is intended to be used, not for direct therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for the manufacture of medicinal products.


(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case C-521/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, transport regulations, traveller








C_2017030EN.01001601.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-521/16)
(2017/C 030/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay?










2.


If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight?










3.


If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).
Case C-576/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Маya Маrinova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Article 9(1) — Article 14(1) — Articles 73, 80 and 273 — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Tax evasion — Anomalies in accounting — Concealment of supplies and revenue — Determination of the taxable amount)
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, accounting, basis of tax assessment, principle of proportionality, tax evasion, tax law








C_2016441EN.01000502.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Маya Маrinova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-576/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 9(1) - Article 14(1) - Articles 73, 80 and 273 - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Tax evasion - Anomalies in accounting - Concealment of supplies and revenue - Determination of the taxable amount))
(2016/C 441/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Маya Маrinova ET

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1), Article 14(1) and Articles 73 and 273 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where goods are not in the warehouse of the taxable person to whom they have been supplied and the tax documents of relevance to those goods have not been recorded in the accounts of that taxable person, tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand pursuant to rules not provided for in that directive. It is, however, for the referring court to ascertain whether the provisions of the national legislation go further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion.


(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016366EN.01000201.xml










5.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

4 October 2016
(2016/C 366/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1161 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4418 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87540 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6005 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0949 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9175 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,42 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2936 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4583 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3883 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4564 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4697 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6565 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5327 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5289 




KRW


South Korean won


1 238,16 




ZAR


South African rand


15,1834 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4462 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5070 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 507,07 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6067 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,856 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,7125 




THB


Thai baht


38,729 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5816 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5831 




INR


Indian rupee


74,2035 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-23/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 — Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator — Article 16(1) and (5) — National electronic register of road transport undertakings — Lack of interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States)
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, administrative cooperation, administrative formalities, directory, professional qualifications, road transport, transport policy








C_2016441EN.01000701.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/7






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-23/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - Lack of interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States))
(2016/C 441/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that, by not creating a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by not establishing the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 October 2009, establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.










2)


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Case C-426/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia v European Commission Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — Article 108(3) TFEU — Commission decision declaring aid to be unlawful — No prior notification — Determination of the date of award of the aid — Agreements granting aid — Unconditional commitment to award aid — Taking into account of national legislation — Formal investigation procedure — Principle of sound administration — Rights of the defence
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Basque Country, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, rights of the defence








C_2016475EN.01000801.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/8





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia v European Commission
(Case C-426/15 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Commission decision declaring aid to be unlawful - No prior notification - Determination of the date of award of the aid - Agreements granting aid - Unconditional commitment to award aid - Taking into account of national legislation - Formal investigation procedure - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence)
(2016/C 475/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Diputación Foral de Bizkaia shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 October 2016 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising the Republic of Austria and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Peru to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2016)0367 — C8-0234/2016 — 2016/0168(NLE))
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, Peru, Romania, accession to an agreement, child, custody, illegal restraint, international convention, parental responsibility, rights of access








C_2018215EN.01026301.xml










19.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/263





P8_TA(2016)0372
Accession of Peru to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 October 2016 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising the Republic of Austria and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Peru to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2016)0367 — C8-0234/2016 — 2016/0168(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 215/46)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2016)0367),










—


having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,










—


having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0234/2016),










—


having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,










—


having regard to Rules 59 and 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0267/2016),












1.


Approves the authorisation for the Republic of Austria and Romania to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Peru to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Peru, as well as to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.






(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, 1/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303.
Special Report No 24/2016 — ‘More efforts needed to raise awareness of and enforce compliance with State aid rules in cohesion policy’
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, competition policy, control of State aid, economic and social cohesion, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition








C_2016366EN.01000801.xml










5.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/8





Special Report No 24/2016
‘More efforts needed to raise awareness of and enforce compliance with State aid rules in cohesion policy’
(2016/C 366/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 24/2016 ‘More efforts needed to raise awareness of and enforce compliance with State aid rules in cohesion policy’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Case T-724/14: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — European Children's Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ — ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project — Action for annulment — Act not subject to appeal — Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable — Inadmissibility — Ineligible expenditure — Reimbursement of the sums paid — Audit report)
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action programme, audit, auditing, child, clothing industry, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2016419EN.01003701.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/37





Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — European Children's Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA
(Case T-724/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ - ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project - Action for annulment - Act not subject to appeal - Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable - Inadmissibility - Ineligible expenditure - Reimbursement of the sums paid - Audit report))
(2016/C 419/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (Valencia, Spain) and Instituto de Economía Pública (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, acting as Agents)

Re:

Primarily, application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration that the first application is not required to reimburse the sum paid to it by EACEA under the agreement for the execution of the ‘Brand & Merchandising Manager for SMEs in the Children’s Product Sector’ project, or, in the alternative, application for annulment, firstly, of EACEA’s pre-information letter of 1 August 2014 informing the first applicant that it had to reimburse the sum of EUR 82 378,81 following the audit of the that project and, secondly, of debit note No 3241401420, issued by EACEA on 5 August 2014, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders European Children’s Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
Case T-712/16: Action brought on 5 October 2016 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
Date: 2016-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, abuse of power, air transport, economic concentration, merger control, transport company








C_2016462EN.01002801.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/28





Action brought on 5 October 2016 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
(Case T-712/16)
(2016/C 462/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 in Case No M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss — Commission decision on Lufthansa’s request for a partial waiver of the commitments concerning the Zurich-Stockholm and Zurich-Warsaw routes;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





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 decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and as a result breaches the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations by refusing to review and/or waive certain commitments imposed by Commission Decision of 4 July 2005 in Case No COMP/M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss.











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused its powers in circumventing the administrative procedure under Regulation 1/2003.