do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-676/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2016 — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR
Date: 2016-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business activity, financial legislation, firm governed by commercial law, money laundering, sale, subsidiary, terrorism








C_2017086EN.01001501.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2016 — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR
(Case C-676/16)
(2017/C 086/18)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o.

Defendant: Ministerstvo financí ČR

Question referred

Do persons who, by way of their business activity, sell companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed for the purposes of sale (‘ready-made companies’), whose sale is realised by the transfer of a holding in the subsidiary company which they are selling, fall within the scope of Article 2(1), point 3(c) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing in conjunction with Article 3(7)(a) thereof?


(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.
Case C-684/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu
Date: 2016-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, paid leave








C_2017104EN.01003201.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu
(Case C-684/16)
(2017/C 104/46)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directive 2003/88/EC) (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude national legislation, such as Paragraph 7 of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave, ‘the BUrlG’), under which, as one of the methods of exercising the right to annual leave, an employee must apply for such leave with an indication of his preferred dates so that the leave entitlement does not lapse at the end of the relevant period without compensation and under which an employer is not required, unilaterally and with binding effect for the employee, to specify when that leave be taken by the employee within the relevant period?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Does this apply even where the employment relationship is between two private persons?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Case C-685/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt
Date: 2016-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, business location, business management, business tax, company with share capital, free movement of capital, profit, share, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2017144EN.01001801.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt
(Case C-685/16)
(2017/C 144/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EV

Defendant: Finanzamt Lippstadt

Question referred

Are the provisions regarding the free movement of capital and payment transactions in Article 63 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding Paragraph 9 No 7 of the Gewerbesteuergesetz 2002, as amended by the 2008 Jahressteuergesetz (annual tax act) of 20 December 2007 (BGBl. I 2007, 3150) in so far as those provisions cause the trade tax deduction of the profit and add-backs by the amount of the profits from shares in a capital company whose management and registered office are located outside the Federal Republic of Germany to be tied to stricter requirements than for the deduction of the profit and the add-backs by the amount of the profits from shares in a non-tax-exempt domestic capital company or by that part of the trade earnings of a domestic undertaking allocated to a permanent establishment not located in Germany?
Case T-914/16: Action brought on 27 December 2016 — Proof IT v EIGE
Date: 2016-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, equal treatment, information system, information technology industry, services contract, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2017078EN.01003401.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/34





Action brought on 27 December 2016 — Proof IT v EIGE
(Case T-914/16)
(2017/C 078/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a framework contract ‘Maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 1 and EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 2, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 October 2016, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the framework contract to a third company;










—


award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 128 480;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.





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 that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by failing to interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the entire procurement procedure.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by entirely re-evaluating the applicant’s tender, thus acting in an arbitrary manner giving rise to concerns about favouritism.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency since the award criteria are imprecise, thus conferring on the defendant an unrestricted freedom of choice as regards the awarding of the contract in question.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should not have been rejected and the framework contract should have been awarded to the applicant.