do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/82 of 16 January 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, vessel








L_2017012EN.01009001.xml










17.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/90








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/82
of 16 January 2017
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,


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

Whereas:







(1)


On 27 May 2016 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/849.












(2)


On 17 December 2016 the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006) deleted the names of five vessels from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.












(3)


Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 16 January 2017.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79.




ANNEX
The vessels with the IMO numbers listed below are deleted from the list set out in entry 20 of part B (Entities) of Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849:






(d)


Dawnlight 9110236










(e)


Ever Bright 88 (J Star) 8914934










(f)


Gold Star 3 (benevolence) 8405402










(o)


Orion Star (Richocean) 9333589










(w)


South Hill 5 9138680
Case T-20/17: Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Hungary v European Commission
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, abuse of power, advertising, basis of tax assessment, control of State aid, tax relief, tax system








C_2017078EN.01003601.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/36





Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Hungary v European Commission
(Case T-20/17)
(2017/C 078/50)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E.Zs. Tóth)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision C(2016) 6929 final of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover;










—


In the alternative, annul the part of the contested decision which classifies the version of the legislation following the amendment of 2015 as unlawful State aid;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three plea(s) in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the tax on advertisement was erroneously classified as State aid.
The contested decision is unlawful because the Commission erroneously classifies the Hungarian legislation in question as State aid; neither the system of progressive rates in bands, with bands and rates based on objective criteria, nor the reduction in the tax base for failing undertakings, or the applicability of the new system of rates to previous tax years constitute State aid.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
The Commission failed to fulfill its obligation to state reasons in classifying as unlawful State aid the legislation on tax on advertisement both in the version amended in 2014 and in the version amended in 2015 without having examined the substantive difference between the two laws. The contested decision did not indicate which legislative exemption allowed an undertaking to enjoy a financial advantage compared with another undertaking in the same position; it did not explain why the progressive rate system was not part of the reference system; it did not indicate what category of undertaking was placed at an exclusive advantage by the system of progressive tax rates in bands and did not indicate why it did not consider the demonstration by the Hungarian authorities of the costs arising for taxable persons and for the tax authorities to be satisfactory.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging abuse of powers
The Commission misused the power granted in the area of review of State aid in adopting the contested decision, that is when it prohibited as unlawful State aid the collection of taxes on the basis of tax legislation falling exclusively within the competence of the Member States, disregarding the fact that there is no case-law whatsoever of either the Court of Justice or the General Court on the question of whether or not the tax system in question can be classified as State aid.
Case C-562/16: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic, airline, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, travel agency, traveller








C_2017202EN.01001304.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/13





Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-562/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/23)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case C-17/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 16 January 2017 — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, employer, financial solvency, pension scheme, wage earner








C_2017078EN.01001502.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 16 January 2017 — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund
(Case C-17/17)
(2017/C 078/21)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grenville Hampshire

Defendant: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) (now superseded by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2)) require member states to ensure that every individual employee receives at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement to old-age benefits in the event that his employer becomes insolvent (with the sole exception of cases of abuse, to which Article 10(a) of that Directive applies)?










2.


Alternatively, subject to the findings of the national courts regarding the facts of the case, is it sufficient under Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC for a member state to have a system of protection where employees usually receive more than 50 % of the value of their accrued entitlement to old-age benefits but some individual employees receive less than 50 % by virtue of:






(i)


a financial cap on the amount of compensation paid to employees (in particular employees who have not reached their pension scheme’s normal pension age at the time of the employer’s insolvency); and/or










(ii)


rules limiting the annual increases in the compensation paid to employees or the annual revaluation of their entitlements prior to pension age?














3.


Is Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC directly effective in the circumstances of the present case?






(1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980, L 283, p. 23).

(2)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008, L 283, p. 36).
Case C-18/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2017 — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, establishment, foreign national, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, frontier worker, labour mobility, provision of services, work permit








C_2017144EN.01001802.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2017 — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben
(Case C-18/17)
(2017/C 144/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA, Dragan Panic, Ivan Arnautov, Jakov Mandic, Miroslav Brnjac, Nikolai Dorassevitch, Alen Mihovic

Defendant: Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 12 of Chapter 2, Free movement of persons, of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to be interpreted as meaning that Austria is entitled to restrict the posting of workers employed in an undertaking established in Croatia by requiring a work permit, where this posting takes place by means of transfer to a company established in Italy [Or. 2] so that the Italian company can provide a service in Austria, and the work carried out by the Croatian workers for the Italian company on the construction of a wire rod mill in Austria is restricted to providing this service in Austria and there is no employment relationship between them and the Italian company?










2.


Are Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services to be interpreted as meaning that Austria is entitled to restrict the posting of Russian and Belarusian workers employed in a company established in Italy by requiring a work permit, if this posting takes place by means of transfer to a second company established in Italy for the purpose of the provision by the second company of a service in Austria, and the work of the Russian and/or Belarusian workers for the second company is restricted to providing its service in Austria and there is no employment relationship between them and the second company?






(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
Case C-22/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 January 2017 by Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh d.o.o. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2016 in Case T-221/16: Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh v EUIPO (NEONART)
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, lighting, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017269EN.01000201.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/2





Appeal brought on 16 January 2017 by Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh d.o.o. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2016 in Case T-221/16: Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh v EUIPO (NEONART)
(Case C-22/17 P)
(2017/C 269/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh d.o.o. (represented by: J. Marn, Non avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 11 May 2017 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-22/17: Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, regional aid, regional development








C_2017104EN.01004901.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/49





Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-22/17)
(2017/C 104/69)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), which excludes from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 1 999 810,30 in relation to expenditure declared by Portugal on the measure ‘Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries’, in the financial years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 31(4)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds. That plea is divided into three arguments.






—


In the first argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not provide evidence of serious and reasonable doubt;










—


In the second argument, the applicant submits that the guidelines set out in the document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997 are not applicable to the present case;










—


In the third argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not align the imputed facts with the requirements for the 5 % financial correction provided for in Document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997.