do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-321/16: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 — Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil rights, equal treatment, fundamental rights, injunction, public prosecutor's department, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017063EN.01001201.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/12





Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue
(Case C-321/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 - Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
(2017/C 063/17)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Dublin District Court

Criminal proceedings against

Owen Pardue

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Dublin District Court (Ireland) by decision of 27 May 2016.


(1)  OJ C 279, 1.6.2016
Case C-453/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Halil Ibrahim Özçelik (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 8(1)(c) — Concept of ‘arrest warrant’ — Autonomous concept of EU law — National arrest warrant issued by a police service and confirmed by a public prosecutor for the purpose of criminal proceedings)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, public prosecutor's department








C_2017014EN.01001701.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/17






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Halil Ibrahim Özçelik
(Case C-453/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - Concept of ‘arrest warrant’ - Autonomous concept of EU law - National arrest warrant issued by a police service and confirmed by a public prosecutor for the purpose of criminal proceedings))
(2017/C 014/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a confirmation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the public prosecutor’s office, of a national arrest warrant issued previously by a police service in connection with criminal proceedings constitutes a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/900 of 8 June 2016 concerning the authorisation of benzoic acid as a feed additive for sows (holder of authorisation DSM Nutritional Product Sp. z o. o.) (OJ L 152, 9.6.2016)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, food additive, market approval, organic acid, swine








L_2016303EN.01002601.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 303/26







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/900 of 8 June 2016 concerning the authorisation of benzoic acid as a feed additive for sows (holder of authorisation DSM Nutritional Product Sp. z o. o.)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 152 of 9 June 2016
)


On page 18, in the Title:
for:

               ‘… Product Sp. z o. o. …’,
read:

               ‘… Products Ltd …’;
on page 20, in the table of the Annex, in the second column:
for:

               ‘… Sp. z o. o.’,
read:

               ‘… Ltd’.
Case C-566/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: tax authorities, tax exemption, tax inspection, taxpayer








C_2017104EN.01002401.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
(Case C-566/16)
(2017/C 104/35)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dávid Vámos

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Question referred

Is national legislation pursuant to with the tax authority may, when carrying out an ex post tax inspection, preclude the possibility of opting for the personal exemption, on the basis that the taxable person only has that possibility at the time of stating when his taxable activity commences, contrary to EU law?
Case C-140/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, tendering, transparency in decision-making, works contract








C_2017063EN.01000902.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/9





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini
(Case C-140/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a tendering procedure - Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work - Judicial obligation to include such a reference - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))
(2017/C 063/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl

Defendant: Comune di Maiolati Spontini

Joined party: Torelli Dottori SpA

Operative part of the order

The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time-limit set by the awarding authority.


(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case C-697/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a call for tenders — Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — That obligation created by case-law — Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, tendering, transparency in decision-making, works contract








C_2017063EN.01000801.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/8





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA
(Case C-697/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a call for tenders - Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work - That obligation created by case-law - Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission))
(2017/C 063/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MB Srl

Defendant: Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA

Operative part of the order

The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure for a public works contract following that tenderer’s failure to comply with the obligation to indicate separately in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — the failure to comply with which carries the penalty of exclusion from the procedure — which is not set out expressly in the tender documents or the national rules, but is based on an interpretation of those rules and the filling in of the gaps in those documents carried out by the national court ruling at final instance. The principles of equal treatment and proportionality must also be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the possibility of granting that tenderer an opportunity to remedy the situation and to satisfy that obligation within a period prescribed by the contracting authority.


(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2015
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: European Defence Agency
Subjects: European Defence Agency, financial year, publication of accounts








C_2016413EN.01000401.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/4





Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2015
(2016/C 413/04)
The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:
http://www.eda.europa.eu/Aboutus/who-we-are/Finance
Case C-569/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, inheritance, paid leave








C_2017053EN.01002101.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer
(Case C-569/16)
(2017/C 053/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stadt Wuppertal

Defendant: Maria Elisabeth Bauer

Question referred

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the heir of a worker who died while in an employment relationship to be entitled to financial compensation in respect of the worker’s entitlement to minimum annual leave prior to his death, which is precluded by Paragraph 7(4) of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on Paid Leave), read in conjunction with Paragraph 1922(1) of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the Civil Code)?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Case C-570/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Volker Willmeroth, as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e. K. v Martina Broßonn
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, inheritance, paid leave








C_2017053EN.01002102.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Volker Willmeroth, as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e. K. v Martina Broßonn
(Case C-570/16)
(2017/C 053/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Volker Willmeroth, as owner of TWI Technische Wartung und Instandsetzung Volker Willmeroth e. K.

Defendant: Martina Broßonn

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union grant the heir of a worker who died while in an employment relationship a right to financial compensation for the worker’s minimum annual leave prior to his death, which is precluded by Paragraph 7(4) of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on paid leave), read in conjunction with Paragraph 1922(1) of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code)?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Does this also apply where the employment relationship is between two private persons?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Case C-548/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Scope — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — National legislation capping deductions of training costs incurred after a certain age — Access to vocational training)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, school fees, social policy, tax relief, vocational training








C_2017014EN.01001501.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/15






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën
(Case C-548/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Scope - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation capping deductions of training costs incurred after a certain age - Access to vocational training))
(2017/C 014/19)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J.J. de Lange

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(1)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the tax treatment of vocational training costs incurred by a person differs depending on his age, comes within the material scope of that directive to the extent to which the scheme is designed to improve access to training for young people.










2.


Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows persons who have not yet reached the age of 30 to deduct in full, under certain conditions, vocational training costs from their taxable income, whereas that right to deduct is restricted in the case of persons who have reached that age, in so far as, first, that scheme is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate objective relating to employment and labour market policy and, second, the means of attaining that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8200 — Platinum Equity Group/Emerson Network Power Business) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control








C_2016413EN.01000201.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8200 — Platinum Equity Group/Emerson Network Power Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 413/02)
On 4 November 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8200. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-495/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU law, Madeira, financial aid, interpretation of the law, ports policy








C_2017063EN.01002201.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/22





Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-495/15) (1)

(2017/C 063/30)
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, mass media








C_2016413EN.01000501.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/5





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2016/C 413/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


15 June 2016





Case No



:


78841





Decision No



:


126/16/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Region



:


N/A





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


Amendments to the production grant scheme for news and current affairs media





Legal basis



:


Amendments to Regulation of 25 March 2014 on the production grants for news and current affairs media





Type of measure



:


Scheme





Objective



:


Promotion of media plurality and diversity





Form of aid



:


Grant





Budget



:


NOK 14,8 million





Duration



:


Until 2020





Economic sectors



:


News and current affairs media





Name and address of the granting authority



:







Norwegian Media Authority




Nygata 4




NO-1607 Fredrikstad




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/