do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-901/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Community of Valencia, Spain, State aid, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, control of State aid, credit guarantee, professional sport, reimbursement of aid, sports body








C_2017053EN.01004001.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/40





Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission
(Case T-901/16)
(2017/C 053/48)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (Elche, Spain) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/CP), by which Spain granted aid to Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (and other football clubs), in particular as regards Elche CF;










—


annul Article 1 of the decision in respect of measure 3;










—


annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it requires the recovery of the State aid in respect of measure 3 by Elche CF;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment and reasoning in the identification of the aid measure and of the beneficiary, in holding that the loan guarantees issued by the Instituto Valenciano de Finanzas (Valencian Institute for Finance) (IVF) in favour of Fundación Elche CF had as their beneficiary, within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, Elche CF.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU and failure to state reasons in respect of the classification as State aid of the loan guarantees granted by the IVF to the Fundación Elche CF. The Commission has not demonstrated imputability to the State, that it has conferred an advantage and that that advantage is selective and has not evaluated the distortion of competition nor given sufficient reasons regarding the effect on trade within the European Economic Area.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU in the quantification of the aid and the amount of aid to be recovered.










4.


Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU in the assessment of the compatibility of the aid and the application of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8231 — Kuoni Travel Holding/MTS Globe) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, travel agency








C_2016477EN.01000102.xml










21.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 477/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8231 — Kuoni Travel Holding/MTS Globe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 477/02)
On 15 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 32016M8231. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-661/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Erich Wirtl v Finanzamt Göppingen
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, advance payment, basis of tax assessment, tax evasion, tax law, tax relief








C_2017086EN.01001301.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Erich Wirtl v Finanzamt Göppingen
(Case C-661/16)
(2017/C 086/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Erich Wirtl

Defendant: Finanzamt Göppingen

Questions referred







1.


In accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 March 2014, Firin, (C-107/13, (1)), is the deduction of input tax on a payment on account excluded where the occurrence of the chargeable event is uncertain at the time when the payment on account is made. Is that exclusion determined by reference to the objective situation or by reference to the point of view of the person having made the payment on account in the light of the circumstances objectively apparent to him?










2.


Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Firin to be interpreted as meaning that, under EU law, an adjustment of the deduction, by a person having made a payment on account for a supply of goods, of the input tax indicated on the invoice issued to that person for that payment is not conditional upon the refund of the payment on account which has been made, where that supply does not ultimately take place?










3.


In the event that the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, does Article 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive), (2) which allows the Member States to lay down the detailed rules for the adjustment provided for in Article 185 of the VAT Directive, authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, as a Member State, to provide in its national law that the taxable amount may be reduced only if the payment on account is refunded, and that the VAT debt and the deduction of input tax are, accordingly, to be adjusted at the same time and under the same conditions?






(1)  ECLI:EU:C:2014:151.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8307 — EP Investment/EP Investment II/EPH) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy transport, merger control








C_2016477EN.01000401.xml










21.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 477/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8307 — EP Investment/EP Investment II/EPH)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 477/06)






1.


On 14 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which EP Investment S.à.r.l. (‘EP Investment’, Luxembourg) and EP Investment II S.à.r.l. (‘EP Investment II’, Luxembourg) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the whole of Energetický a průmyslový holding, a.s. (‘EPH’, Czech Republic), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


EP Investment and EP Investment II are holding companies whose only activities are (and will be) to hold the shares in EPH. EP Investment and EP Investment II are fully-owned and controlled by Daniel Křetínský whose group has activities in several sectors, including energy, transport infrastructure, automotive and media.










—


EPH is a utility company with several activities including lignite mining, electricity and heat production, distribution and supply as well as gas transmission, distribution, storage and supply.














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.8307 — EP Investment/EP Investment II/EPH, 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.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8262 — Fosun International/Tom Tailor) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, footwear industry, merger control, retail trade








C_2016477EN.01000101.xml










21.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 477/1





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.8262 — Fosun International/Tom Tailor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 477/01)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 24 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Fosun International and Tom Tailor. On 14 December 2016, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.
Case C-355/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in the area of public procurement — Article 1(3) — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 2a(2) — Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ — Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision)
Date: 2016-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, appeal, appeal to an administrative authority, award of contract, invitation to tender








C_2017053EN.01001401.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/14





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien
(Case C-355/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures in the area of public procurement - Article 1(3) - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 2a(2) - Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ - Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision))
(2017/C 053/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH

Defendants: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a tenderer who has been excluded from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from being refused access to a review of the decision awarding the public contract concerned and of the conclusion of the contract where only that unsuccessful tenderer and the successful tenderer submitted bids and the unsuccessful tenderer maintains that the successful tenderer’s bid should also have been rejected.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.