do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-733/16: Action brought on 18 October 2016 — Banque Postale v ECB
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, banking policy, financial legislation, infringement of EU law, private-sector liquidity, public sector, savings








C_2016454EN.01003201.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/32






Action brought on 18 October 2016 — Banque Postale v ECB
(Case T-733/16)
(2016/C 454/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: La Banque Postale (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume and L. Coudray, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016 on the application submitted by La Banque Postale seeking authorisation to exclude exposures to the public sector from the calculation of the leverage ratio in accordance with Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;










—


order the European Central Bank to bear all 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 European Central Bank erred in law by delivering prematurely its decision of 24 August 2016 on the application submitted by La Banque Postale seeking authorisation to exclude exposures to the public sector from the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB lacks discretion in applying Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 575/2013’).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringements of law by the ECB in adopting the contested decision, relating in particular to:






—


the lack of a leverage effect in regard to La Banque Postale’s centralised savings;










—


the alleged risks of non-payment by the Caisse des dépôts et consignations and by the French State;










—


the alleged operational risks linked to the gathering of La Banque Postale’s centralised savings.
Case T-351/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council (Dumping — Importation of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Individual concern — Admissibility — Determination of normal value — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — ‘Lesser duty’ rule — Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, hoisting equipment, import (EU), originating product








C_2016441EN.01001501.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/15






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council
(Case T-351/13) (1)

((Dumping - Importation of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Determination of normal value - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - ‘Lesser duty’ rule - Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 441/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 112, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Case C-532/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v AB SEB bankas
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building plot, plot, real property, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2017006EN.01002801.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v AB SEB bankas

(Case C-532/16)
(2017/C 006/35)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Other party: AB SEB bankas

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the deduction adjustment mechanism provided for in Directive 2006/112 is not applicable in cases where an initial deduction of value added tax (VAT) could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was an exempt transaction relating to the supply of land?










2.


Is the answer to the first question affected by the fact that (1) the VAT on the purchase of the plots of land was initially deducted because of the tax administration’s practice under which the supply in question was incorrectly regarded as being a supply of building land subject to VAT, as provided for in Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112, and/or (2) after the initial deduction made by the purchaser, the supplier of the land issued a VAT credit note to the purchaser adjusting the amounts of VAT indicated (specified) on the initial invoice?










3.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 184 and/or 185 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where an initial deduction could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was exempt from VAT, the taxable person’s obligation to adjust that deduction must be considered to have arisen immediately or only when it became known that the initial deduction could not have been made?










4.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Directive 2006/112, and in particular Articles 179, 184 to 186 and 250 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the adjusted amounts of deductible input VAT must be deducted in the tax period in which the taxable person’s obligation and/or right to adjust the initial deduction arose?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1839, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea apply
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Guinea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2016384EN.01000201.xml










18.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/2





Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1839, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea apply
(2016/C 384/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1839 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 (3).
The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes continue to fulfil the criterion set out in Decision 2010/638/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea and should therefore remain subject to the measures as renewed by Decision (CFSP) 2016/1839.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation before 30 June 2017, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 280, 18.10.2016, p. 32.

(3)  OJ L 346, 23.12.2009, p. 26.