do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-643/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 December 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
Date: 2016-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic money, intra-EU payment, principle of proportionality, provision of services








C_2017078EN.01001101.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 December 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
(Case C-643/16)
(2017/C 078/15)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: American Express Co.

Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

Questions referred







(1)


Does a payment system, to which the Access Obligation provided for in Article 35(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (1) (‘PSD2’) would otherwise not apply, by virtue of Article 35(2)(b) PSD2, render itself subject to that Obligation (i) by entering into co-brand arrangements with co-brand partners who do not themselves provide payment services on that system in relation to that co-branded product offering and/or (ii) by using an agent to act on its behalf in providing payment services?










(2)


If the answer to Question (1) is ‘yes’, is Article 35(1) of PSD2 invalid in so far as it provides that systems with such arrangements are to be subject to the Access Obligation, on the grounds of:






(a)


failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU;










(b)


manifest error of assessment; and/or










(c)


breach of the principle of proportionality?










(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015, L 337, p. 35).
Case C-641/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France
Date: 2016-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, company in difficulties, distributor, financial solvency, jurisdiction, processing industry








C_2017070EN.01001001.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France
(Case C-641/16)
(2017/C 070/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

Defendant: Expert France

Question referred

Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court which opened insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction over an action seeking to establish liability by which the assignee of part of a business acquired in the course of those insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as the exclusive distributor or the goods manufactured by the debtor?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
Case T-890/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission
Date: 2016-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Denmark, EU financing, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, project of common interest, rail transport, restriction on competition, tunnel








C_2017063EN.01003101.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/31





Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission
(Case T-890/16)
(2017/C 063/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision dated 30 September 2016 (the Contested Decision), concerning certain aid measures granted to certain third parties regarding the financing of the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link Project;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on ten pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the potential overcompensation involved in the railway fees constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the gratuitous use of State property constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State guarantees to the third party concerned constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the capital injections constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State loans constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State aid exceeding the amount authorised by the Planning Decision constitutes existing aid.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the tax advantages constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the Contested Aid Measures for the planning phase have been authorised in the Construction Decision.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2238 of 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia
Date: 2016-12-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Georgia, fact-finding mission, financial aid








L_2016337EN.01001501.xml










13.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 337/15








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/2238
of 12 December 2016
         
amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 12 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/452/CFSP (1), which extended the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (‘EUMM Georgia’ or the ‘Mission’), established by Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP (2). Decision 2010/452/CFSP expires on 14 December 2016.












(2)


Following the 2016 Strategic Review, EUMM Georgia should be extended for a further period of two years.












(3)


Decision 2010/452/CFSP should be amended accordingly.












(4)


The Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2010/452/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 14(1), the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 15 December 2016 and 14 December 2017 shall be EUR 18 000 000.’;










(2)


in Article 18, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall expire on 14 December 2018.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 15 December 2016.




Done at Brussels, 12 December 2016.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43).

(2)  Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP of 15 September 2008 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 248, 17.9.2008, p. 26).
Case C-638/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 12 December 2016 — X, X v État belge
Date: 2016-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, cruel and degrading treatment, foreign national, refugee, right of asylum








C_2017038EN.01001801.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 12 December 2016 — X, X v État belge
(Case C-638/16)
(2017/C 038/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du contentieux des étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: X, X

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred







1.


Do the ‘international obligations’, referred to in Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 810/2009 (1) of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas cover all the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including, in particular, those guaranteed by Articles 4 and 18, and do they also cover obligations which bind the Member States, in the light of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 33 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees?










2.








A.


In view of the answer given to the first question, must Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas be interpreted as meaning that, subject to its discretion with regard to the circumstances of the case, a Member State to which an application for a visa with limited territorial validity has been made is required to issue the visa applied for, where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or another international obligation by which it is bound is detected?










B.


Does the existence of links between the applicant and the Member State to which the visa application has been made (for example, family connections, host families, guarantors and sponsors) affect the answer to that question?










(1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1).