do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-446/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction — Refusal — Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services — Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, invoicing, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, provision of services, tax authorities, tax inspection, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017063EN.01000501.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/5





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság
(Case C-446/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal - Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services - Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks))
(2017/C 063/07)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Signum Alfa Sped Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

Operative part of the order

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national practice under which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax which is payable or paid in respect of services supplied to it on the ground that the invoices relating to those services lack verisimilitude since the issuer of those invoices could not be the real supplier of those services, unless it is established, in the light of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks not required of it, that that taxable person knew or should have known that those services were involved in value added tax fraud, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Case C-156/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesas — Latvia) — ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA v ‘Swedbank’ AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/47/EC — Scope — Definition of ‘financial collateral’, ‘relevant financial obligations’ and ‘provision’ of financial collateral — Whether it is possible to enforce financial collateral notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceeding — Current account agreement including a financial collateral clause)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, bank deposit, claim, debt, financial legislation, financial solvency








C_2017014EN.01000501.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesas — Latvia) — ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA v ‘Swedbank’ AS
(Case C-156/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Scope - Definition of ‘financial collateral’, ‘relevant financial obligations’ and ‘provision’ of financial collateral - Whether it is possible to enforce financial collateral notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceeding - Current account agreement including a financial collateral clause))
(2017/C 014/06)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:
            ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA

Defendant:
            ‘Swedbank’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements is to be interpreted as conferring on the taker of financial collateral, such as the collateral at issue in the main proceedings, whereby monies deposited in a bank account are pledged to the bank to cover all the account holder’s debts to the bank, the right to enforce the collateral, notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceedings in respect of the collateral provider, only if, first, the monies covered by the collateral were deposited in the account in question before the commencement of those proceedings or those monies were deposited on the day of commencement, the bank having proved that it was not aware, nor should have been aware, that those proceedings had commenced and, second, the account holder was prevented from disposing of those monies after they had been deposited in that account.


(1)  
            OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, electricity supply








C_2016413EN.01000701.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/7





No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2016/C 413/07)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


17 June 2016





Case No



:


79159





Decision No



:


130/16/2016





EFTA State



:


Iceland





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


Sale of electricity to Thorsil





Legal basis



:


Power contract signed between Thorsil ehf. and Landsvirkjun





Type of measure



:


No state aid




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/
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016413EN.01000301.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 November 2016
(2016/C 413/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1022 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,54 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4417 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89030 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0025 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0793 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1193 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,027 




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,95 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3388 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5050 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,5215 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4336 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4798 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5467 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5065 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5365 




KRW


South Korean won


1 270,65 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8301 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4771 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5048 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 539,12 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6688 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,780 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,8562 




THB


Thai baht


38,516 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5565 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8522 




INR


Indian rupee


73,3765 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-452/16: 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 Krzystof Marek Poltorak (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 1(1) — Concept of ‘judicial decision’ — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, Sweden, police








C_2017014EN.01001601.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/16






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 Krzystof Marek Poltorak
(Case C-452/16) (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 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial decision’ - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence))
(2017/C 014/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Krzystof Marek Poltorak

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of 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, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that a police service, such as the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden), is not covered by the term ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by that police service with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.


(1)  
            OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case C-590/15 P: Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts — Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor — Professional competence — Requirement of full legal training — Recognition of diplomas)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, tendering, translation








C_2017063EN.01000701.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/7





Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case C-590/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public service contracts - Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts - Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor - Professional competence - Requirement of full legal training - Recognition of diplomas))
(2017/C 063/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (J. Inghelram and S. Chantre, agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Alain Laurent Brouillard is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8226 — TowerBrook Capital Partners/Van Dijk Educatie Beheer) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: book trade, economic concentration, merger control, retail trade








C_2016413EN.01001101.xml










10.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8226 — TowerBrook Capital Partners/Van Dijk Educatie Beheer)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 413/10)






1.


On 3 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. (‘TowerBrook’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the undertaking Van Dijk Educatie Beheer BV (‘Van Dijk’, Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


TowerBrook is a global private equity firm investing in healthcare products and services, financial services, consumer goods, telecommunications, media, chemicals, knowledge services and selected industrial segments.










—


Van Dijk sells and rents textbooks and other educational resources to secondary schools and to students in vocational, higher professional, and university education. It also sells professional and management books to government agencies and provides subscription agency services to government agencies and private undertakings.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8226 — TowerBrook Capital Partners/Van Dijk Educatie Beheer, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-477/16 PPU: 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 Ruslanas Kovalkovas (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 1(1) — Concept of ‘judicial decision’ — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania with a view to executing a custodial sentence)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, Lithuania, legal system, ministry








C_2017014EN.01001702.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 Ruslanas Kovalkovas
(Case C-477/16 PPU) (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 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial decision’ - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania with a view to executing a custodial sentence))
(2017/C 014/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Ruslanas Kovalkovas

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘judicial authority’, referred to in Article 6(1) of 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, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an organ of the executive, such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, from being designated as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by it with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.


(1)  
            OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case C-199/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ciclat Soc. coop v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45 — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Public procurement — Conditions for exclusion from a procedure for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions — Social security contributions payment certificate — Correction of irregularities)
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, national law, services contract, social-security contribution, supplies contract, works contract








C_2017014EN.01000701.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/7






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ciclat Soc. coop v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture
(Case C-199/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45 - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Public procurement - Conditions for exclusion from a procedure for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions - Social security contributions payment certificate - Correction of irregularities))
(2017/C 014/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ciclat Soc. coop

Defendants: Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

Intervening parties: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Team Service SCARL, as the representative of ATI-Snam Lazio Sud Srl and Ati-Linda Srl, Consorzio Servizi Integrati

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 of 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 not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges a contracting authority to consider an infringement relating to the payment of social security contributions, recorded in a certificate requested by a contracting authority on its own initiative and issued by the social security institutions, to be a ground for exclusion, where that infringement existed on the date of the participation in a tender procedure, even if it no longer existed at the time of the award or of the verification carried out on the contracting authority’s own initiative.


(1)  
            OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case C-567/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 10 November 2016 — Merck Sharp v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent








C_2017022EN.01001401.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 10 November 2016 — Merck Sharp v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(Case C-567/16)
(2017/C 022/20)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Merck Sharp

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Questions referred







1.


Is an End of Procedure Notice issued by the reference member state under Article 28(4) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use before expiry of the basic patent to be treated as equivalent to a granted marketing authorisation for the purposes of Article 3(b) of European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC (2) of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) (the ‘SPC Regulation’), such that an applicant for an SPC in the Member State in question is entitled to apply for and be granted an SPC on the basis of the End of Procedure Notice?










2.


If the answer to question (1) is no; in the circumstances in question 1, is the absence of a granted marketing authorisation in the Member State in question at the date of the application for an SPC in that member state an irregularity that can be cured under Article 10(3) of the SPC Regulation once the marketing authorisation has been granted?






(1)  OJ L 311, p. 67


(2)  OJ L 152, p. 1