do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-593/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark — Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation concerning thin capitalisation of subsidiaries — Inclusion in the taxable income of a lending company of the loan interest paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary — Tax exemption for interest paid by a resident borrowing subsidiary — Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes — Need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance)
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: borrowing, corporation tax, interest, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax evasion, tax exemption, tax law, tax relief








C_2017053EN.01000302.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark — Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-593/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation concerning thin capitalisation of subsidiaries - Inclusion in the taxable income of a lending company of the loan interest paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary - Tax exemption for interest paid by a resident borrowing subsidiary - Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes - Need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance))
(2017/C 053/04)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest paid by a resident subsidiary, in so far as that subsidiary is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure by reason of the rules limiting the deduction of interest paid in cases of thin capitalisation, but which excludes the exemption that would result from the application of its own thin-capitalisation legislation in the case where the subsidiary is resident in another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P) (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax system — Corporation tax — Deduction — Amortisation of goodwill resulting from acquisitions by undertakings resident for tax purposes in Spain of shareholdings of at least 5 % in undertakings resident for tax purposes outside Spain — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity)
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, export of capital, goodwill, tax law, tax relief








C_2017053EN.01000401.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/4





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P)
(Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporation tax - Deduction - Amortisation of goodwill resulting from acquisitions by undertakings resident for tax purposes in Spain of shareholdings of at least 5 % in undertakings resident for tax purposes outside Spain - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity))
(2017/C 053/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, abogados)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents) Ireland (represented by: G. Hodge and E. Creedon, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister, and A. Goodman, Barrister), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 7 November 2014, Autogrill España v Commission (T-219/10, EU:T:2014:939), and of 7 November 2014, Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (T-399/11, EU:T:2014:938);










2.


Refers the cases back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs;










4.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016477EN.01000201.xml










21.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 477/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 December 2016
(2016/C 477/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0364 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4343 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83978 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7265 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0687 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0343 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,98 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4095 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5213 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,6471 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4320 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3896 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0494 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5029 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5002 




KRW


South Korean won


1 238,45 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5806 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2104 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5320 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 959,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6426 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,849 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,8664 




THB


Thai baht


37,341 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4801 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1150 




INR


Indian rupee


70,5475 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-508/15 and C-509/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15) v Land Berlin (References for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 7, first paragraph — Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Conditions — No need for the Turkish worker to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State for the first three years of the residence of a family member)
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, family migration, foreign national, migrant worker, residence permit








C_2017053EN.01001601.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15) v Land Berlin
(Joined Cases C-508/15 and C-509/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 7, first paragraph - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Conditions - No need for the Turkish worker to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State for the first three years of the residence of a family member))
(2017/C 053/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15)

Defendant: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7, first paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association must be interpreted as meaning that that provision confers a right of residence in the host Member State on a family member of a Turkish worker, who has been authorised to enter that Member State, for the purposes of family reunification, and who, from his entry into the territory of that Member State, has lived with that Turkish worker, even if the period of at least three years during which the latter is duly registered as belonging to the labour force does not immediately follow the arrival of the family member concerned in the host Member State, but is subsequent to it.


(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Case C-660/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Achim Kollroß v Finanzamt Dachau
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, advance payment, tax authorities, tax law, tax relief








C_2017086EN.01001201.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Achim Kollroß v Finanzamt Dachau
(Case C-660/16)
(2017/C 086/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Achim Kollroß

Defendant: Finanzamt Dachau

Questions referred







1.


Are the requirements as to the certainty that a supply will take place, as a condition of the deduction of input tax on a payment on account within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-107/13 Firin, (1) to be determined purely objectively or from the point of view of the person having made the payment on account in the light of the circumstances apparent to him?










2.


Are the Member States, taking into account the fact that the chargeability of tax and the right of deduction arise at the same time, in accordance with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) and the regulatory powers which they enjoy under Article 185(2) and Article 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, entitled to make the adjustment of both tax and the deduction of input tax subject to a refund of the payment on account?










3.


Must the tax office responsible for a person who has made a payment on account refund the value added tax to that person where the latter cannot recover the payment on account from the recipient of that payment? If so, must this take place as part of the tax assessment procedure or is a separate equitable procedure sufficient for this purpose?






(1)  ECLI:EU:C:2014:151.

(2)  OJ L 347, p. 1.
Case T-67/16: Order of the General Court of 21 December 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_2017053EN.01004701.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/47





Order of the General Court of 21 December 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)
(Case T-67/16) (1)

(2017/C 053/57)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case C-662/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Laboratoire de la mer against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-109/16: Laboratoire de la mer v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017277EN.01002001.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/20





Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Laboratoire de la mer against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-109/16: Laboratoire de la mer v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-662/16 P)
(2017/C 277/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Laboratoire de la mer (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 20 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-902/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cement, concrete, economic concentration, merger control, mining industry, plaster, principle of legal certainty, principle of subsidiarity








C_2017053EN.01004002.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/40





Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
(Case T-902/16)
(2017/C 053/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission No (2016)6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate proceedings pursuant to article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergerCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia concerning the envisaged acquisition by Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. of 100 % of the shares in Cemex Hratska dd. and Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft.; and










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
According to the applicant, the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG — rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., a full-function joint venture in which the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG each hold respectively a controlling interest of 50 %, as ‘undertakings concerned’ and thus concluded that the transaction has a ‘Union dimension’ within the meaning of article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. According to the applicant, in reality, the European Commission lacks the competence for adopting the contested decision and reviewing the transaction on the basis of the Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the contested decision therefore violates article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the underlying principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.
First, the applicant puts forward that the European Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in relying on paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (2) in order to qualify the applicant and SchwenkZement KG, rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., as the ‘undertakings concerned’;
Second, the applicant puts forward that paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice would be unlawful if it could indeed be applied to the case at hand due to a violation of article 1 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the underlying primary law principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ, L 24, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2008, C 95, p. 1.
Case T-904/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, alternative dispute resolution, duties of civil servants, psychological harassment, reassignment








C_2017063EN.01003301.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/33





Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions
(Case T-904/16)
(2017/C 063/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2016 reassigning the applicant, as an administrator to the Translation Directorate pursuant to the settlement in Case F-33/15;










—


hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016;










—


order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, since the contested decision was adopted in manifest breach of the amicable agreement reached in Case F-33/15 Labri v EESC.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the applicant was deliberately misled as to the scope of the agreement reached between the parties and more specifically as to the two committees’ interpretation of the terms of that agreement.
Case C-131/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Club Hotel Loutraki v European Commission, Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (Appeal — State aid — Operation of Video Lottery Terminals — Grant by a Member State of an exclusive licence — Decision finding no State aid — Article 108(3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4, 7 and 13 — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ — Date of the assessment — Article 296 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘economic advantage’ — Joint assessment of the measures notified)
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, game of chance, right to justice, trade licence








C_2017053EN.01000801.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Club Hotel Loutraki v European Commission, Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP)
(Case C-131/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Operation of Video Lottery Terminals - Grant by a Member State of an exclusive licence - Decision finding no State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 7 and 13 - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Date of the assessment - Article 296 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Joint assessment of the measures notified))
(2017/C 053/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE, Kazino Aigaiou AE (represented by: I. Ioannidis, dikigoros, and S. Pappas, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (represented by: A. Tomtsis, dikigoros, and M. Petite, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
Case C-664/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, expert's report ordered by a court, invoicing, principle of proportionality, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017104EN.01002702.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba
(Case C-664/16)
(2017/C 104/41)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba

Questions referred







1.


On a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 (1) in general, and Articles 167, 168, 178, 179 and 273 in particular, and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, may a taxable person who satisfies the substantive requirements for the deduction of VAT exercise his right to deduct in a situation where, in a particular context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, he is unable to provide evidence, by way of invoices, of input tax for the supply of goods and provision of services?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, on a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, is an indirect assessment method (assessment by means of a court-commissioned expert report), employed by an independent expert and based on the amount of work/labour involved in the construction of buildings as stated in the report, an acceptable and appropriate measure for determining the extent of the right to deduct in a situation where the supply of goods (building material) and the provision of services (labour relating to the construction of buildings) originate from taxable persons liable to VAT?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).