do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-653/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, equal pay, equal treatment, judge, remuneration of work








C_2017078EN.01001102.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě
(Case C-653/16)
(2017/C 078/16)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jitka Svobodová

Defendant: Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě

Questions referred







1.


Does the Czech legislation under which judges are not entitled to remuneration for on-call duty, even though other employees (in the public and private sectors) are entitled to that remuneration on the basis of the Zákoník práce (Labour Code) or other provisions of law, constitute unequal treatment in the field of pay, prohibited by Council Directive 2000/78/EC? (1)











2.


Does the Czech legislation under which all judges (according to the number of years credited) are entitled to the same salary, even though all of them perform a different number of hours of on-call duty, constitute unequal treatment in the field of pay, prohibited by Council Directive 2000/78/EC?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case C-650/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, corporation tax, parent company, subsidiary, tax law, tax relief








C_2017063EN.01001801.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-650/16)
(2017/C 063/25)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is possible to make deductions for losses in domestic branches, whilst it is not possible to make deductions for losses in branches situated in other Member States, including in conditions equivalent to those in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment in Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, (1) paragraphs 55 and 56, unless the group has elected international joint taxation on the terms as set out in the main proceedings?


(1)  (EU:C:2005:763)
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/2392 of 19 December 2016 appointing a member of the Court of Auditors
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Estonia, European Court of Auditors, appointment of members








L_2016358EN.01000201.xml










29.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 358/2








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/2392
of 19 December 2016
         
appointing a member of the Court of Auditors


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,


Having regard to the proposal by the Republic of Estonia,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The term of office of Ms Kersti KALJULAID expired on 6 May 2016.












(2)


A new appointment should therefore be made,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Juhan PARTS is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2022.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 December 2016.


For the Council


The President

L. SÓLYMOS
            





(1)  Opinion of 14 December 2016 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
Case C-657/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Bluebell Partners Limited v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, offer price, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, takeover bid, transparency in decision-making








C_2017121EN.01001101.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Bluebell Partners Limited v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-657/16)
(2017/C 121/16)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bluebell Partners Limited

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found to have taken place between, on the one hand, the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and, on the other hand, one or more sellers, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
Case T-894/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Air France v Commission
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, State aid, airport, charges for use of infrastructure, civil aviation, control of State aid, investment aid, low cost airline








C_2017046EN.01002602.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/26





Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Air France v Commission
(Case T-894/16)
(2017/C 046/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société Air France (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: R. Sermier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1698 of 20 February 2014 concerning measures SA.22932 (11/C) (ex NN 37/07) implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport (notified under document C(2014) 870);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.





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 flaws in the contested decision as regards the aid from the département of Bouches-du-Rhône to the ‘Marseille-Provence 2’ (MP 2) terminal. In particular,






—


the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards:






—


the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic;










—


the objective of boosting the region’s economic development;














—


the aid is unnecessary.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the agreement to purchase advertising space with the company Airport Marketing Services.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the passenger charges for the terminal MP2.