do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-249/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 12 May 2017 — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, service, tax relief








C_2017221EN.01001501.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 12 May 2017 — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners
(Case C-249/17)
(2017/C 221/19)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Questions referred







1.


Can a future intention to provide management services to a takeover target, in the event that the takeover is successful, be sufficient to establish that the potential acquirer is engaged in economic activity for the purposes of Art. 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) so that VAT charged to the potential acquirer on goods or services provided for the purposes of seeking to progress the relevant acquisition can potentially be considered as VAT on an input to the intended economic activity of providing such management services; and










2.


Can there be a sufficient ‘direct and immediate link’, as identified as a requirement by the CJEU in Cibo (2), between professional services rendered in the context of such a potential takeover and output, being the potential provision of management to the acquisition target in the event that the takeover is successful, so as to permit a deduction to be made in respect of the VAT payable on those professional services?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 27 September 2001, Cibo Participations SA v Directeur régional des impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais, C-16/00, EU:C:2001:495.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017148EN.01000401.xml










12.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 May 2017
(2017/C 148/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0860 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,69 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4401 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84485 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6478 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0952 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3330 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,598 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,57 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2242 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5490 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8921 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4737 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4906 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4594 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5862 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5292 




KRW


South Korean won


1 225,56 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5157 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4957 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4320 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 490,50 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7225 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,176 




RUB


Russian rouble


62,0650 




THB


Thai baht


37,740 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4363 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6050 




INR


Indian rupee


69,9060 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European parliament and of the Council
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dairy production, raw milk, regulation of agricultural production




C_2017148EN.01000101.xml










12.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/1





Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European parliament and of the Council (1)

(2017/C 148/01)









(Annual data (1000 t))




Amounts of raw milk production (*2) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013




2015


Cow


Ewe


Goat


Buffalo




BE


3 826,0 


0,0 


0,0 


0,0 




BG


1 028,0 


74,3 


40,8 


9,5 




CZ


3 025,9 


0,2 


0,5 


0,0 




DK


5 335,7 


0,0 


0,0 


0,0 




DE


32 670,9 


0,0 


13,7 


0,0 




EE


782,7 


0,0 


0,5 


0,0 




IE


6 634,4 


0,0 


0,0 


0,0 




EL


770,0 


804,0 


341,0 


0,0 




ES


7 029,5 


580,9 


494,7 


0,0 




FR


25 850,9 


273,9 


610,5 


0,0 




HR


694,0 


6,0 


7,0 


0,0 




IT


11 425,9 


475,2 


63,6 


227,2 




CY


165,3 


25,9 


22,9 


0,0 




LV


975,4 


0,0 


2,7 


0,0 




LT


1 734,7 


0,0 


3,8 


0,0 




LU


346,3 


0,0 


3,0 


0,0 




HU


1 941,3 


1,7 


3,6 


0,0 




MT


41,6 


1,6 


1,0 


0,0 




NL


13 331,0 


2,5  (*3)



245,3 


1,5  (*3)





AT


3 537,8 


10,6 


20,6 


0,0 




PL


13 236,2 


0,4 


16,3 


0,0 




PT


2 013,8 


71,6 


28,8 


0,0 




RO


3 981,0 


424,9 


245,7 


25,0 




SI


631,7 


0,5 


1,7 


0,0 




SK


931,0 


10,7 


0,2 


0,0 




FI


2 436,8 


0,0 


0,0 


0,0 




SE


2 933,2 


0,0 


0,0 


0,0 




UK


15 457,0 


0,0 


0,0 


0,0 




EU-28


162 768,0 


2 764,9 


2 167,9 


263,2 






(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(*1)  0,0: zero or less than half the unit.

(*2)  2015 Milk Production on the farm Eurostat — NewCronos Products Obtained.

(*3)  Communicated by the Member State and/or estimated/calculated production.
Case T-294/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004201.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/42





Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)
(Case T-294/17)
(2017/C 231/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Nöske, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 997 073 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘Lion’s Head’

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 in Case R 1478/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2360 of 28 November 2016 on the signing and conclusion of the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America (OJ L 350, 22.12.2016)
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: United States, agreement (EU), logistics, military cooperation, ratification of an agreement, service, signature of an agreement, supply








L_2017121EN.01004901.xml










12.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 121/49







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2360 of 28 November 2016 on the signing and conclusion of the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 350 of 22 December 2016
)


On page 1, recital 2:
for:







‘(2)


Such operations may require logistic support, and supplies and services for the …’,





read:







‘(2)


Such operations may require logistic support, supplies and services for the …’;





on page 1, recital 3:
for:







‘(3)


… and be ready to provide logistic support, and supplies and services to units of the …’,





read:







‘(3)


… and be ready to provide logistic support, supplies and services to units of the …’.
Joined Cases T-15/15 and T-197/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2017 — Costa v Parliament (Rules governing emoluments of Members of the Parliament — Old-age pension — Suspension — Recovery — Rule against overlapping — Rules on payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Reference to national legislation — Article 12(2a)(v) of the Regulation on life-annuities of Members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies — Allowance received for exercising the function of President of an Italian Port Authority — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, cumulative pension entitlement, multiple office holding, suspension of payments








C_2017213EN.01002502.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/25





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2017 — Costa v Parliament
(Joined Cases T-15/15 and T-197/15) (1)

((Rules governing emoluments of Members of the Parliament - Old-age pension - Suspension - Recovery - Rule against overlapping - Rules on payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Reference to national legislation - Article 12(2a)(v) of the Regulation on life-annuities of Members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies - Allowance received for exercising the function of President of an Italian Port Authority - Legitimate expectations))
(2017/C 213/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Paolo Costa (Venice, Italy) (represented by: G. Orsoni and M. Romeo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Two actions based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the Parliament of 20 October 2014 and of 9 February 2015 concerning, respectively, suspension of the provisional retirement pension of the applicant and recovery of the sum of EUR 49 770,42 paid in that respect, as well as annulment of debit note 2015-239 of 23 February 2015 concerning that recovery.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Paolo Costa to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
Case C-252/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Moisés Vadillo González v Alestis Aerospace, S.L.
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, parental leave, rest period








C_2017256EN.01000602.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Moisés Vadillo González v Alestis Aerospace, S.L.
(Case C-252/17)
(2017/C 256/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Moisés Vadillo González

Defendant: Alestis Aerospace, S.L.

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 2010/18/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 37.4 ET (leave of absence of an hour every day until the child reaches nine months of age) to the effect that, regardless of the sex of either parent, such leave is not be granted to the person applying for it if the other parent is unemployed?










2.


Does Article 3 of Directive 2006/54/EC, (2) which seeks to guarantee full equality between men and women in their working lives, preclude an interpretation of the said Article 37.4 ET to the effect that, if the male parent is working, he has no entitlement to such leave if his wife and fellow parent is unemployed?






(1)  Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC


OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13



(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)


OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8471 — BC Partners/PSC/Shawbrook) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2017148EN.01000501.xml










12.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8471 — BC Partners/PSC/Shawbrook)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 148/05)






1.


On 4 May 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which funds managed by Pollen Street Capital Limited (‘Pollen Street Capital’, UK) and funds managed by BC Partners LLP (‘BC Partners’, UK) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Shawbrook Group plc (‘Shawbrook’ UK) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Pollen Street Capital: a private equity firm focussed on investing in businesses in the financial services sector in Europe,
—   BC Partners: a private equity firm focusing on the European and North American markets,
—   Shawbrook: specialist UK lending and savings bank specialised in serving the small and medium sized enterprises and individuals in the UK through a range of lending and saving products.










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.8471 — BC Partners/PSC/Shawbrook, 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.
Case T-284/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, damages, equal treatment, parliamentary immunity, rights of the defence








C_2017231EN.01003601.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/36





Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-284/17)
(2017/C 231/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Parliament resolution of 2 March 2017 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Marine Le Pen, 2016/2295(IMM);










—


order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;










—


order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all 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 infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No. 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the protocol’). This plea is divided into four parts.






—


First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.










—


Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.










—


Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.










—


Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the protocol. This plea is divided into three parts.






—


First part, relating to the purpose of Article 9 of the protocol.










—


Second part, alleging that the European Parliament erred in law regarding the waiver of the immunity of Mrs Le Pen.










—


Third part, alleging that the resolution to waive immunity infringes Mrs Le Pen’s independence and that of the institution.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. This plea is divided into two parts.






—


First part, alleging that Mrs Le Pen was treated differently in relation to comparable situations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.










—


Second part, alleging that the contested decision is a clear case of fumus persecutionis and infringes the principle of sound administration.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.
Case C-251/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: national implementing measure, periodic penalty payment, pollution control measures, sanction (EU), urban area, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment








C_2017221EN.01001601.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/16





Action brought on 12 May 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-251/17)
(2017/C 221/20)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the judgment of the Court of 19 July 2012 in Case C-565/10 Commission v Italy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










—


order the Italian Republic to make a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 346 922,40 for each day of delay in implementing the judgment in Case C-565/10 from the date of judgment in the present case to the date of implementation of the judgment in Case C-565/10, less a possible reduction calculated by the proposed reduction formula;










—


order the Italian Republic to pay a lump sum of EUR 39 113,80 per day from the date of the judgment in Case C-565/10 until the date of judgment in the present case or until implementation of the judgment in Case C-565/10, with a minimum total amount of EUR 62 699 421,40;










—


order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission takes issue with the failure to give effect to the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 July 2012 in relation to 80 of the Italian agglomerations which were the subject of that judgment.
In this respect, the Italian Republic acknowledges its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) in relation to 35 agglomerations. It also acknowledges its failure to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of that directive in relation to 70 agglomerations.
From this the Commission concludes that the Italian Republic has not taken all of the measures necessary to implement in full the judgment of 19 July 2012.


(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8293 — 3i/APG/ATP/Eiser Infrastructure Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: airport, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, energy grid, merger control, pension scheme, waste management








C_2017148EN.01000302.xml










12.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8293 — 3i/APG/ATP/Eiser Infrastructure Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 148/03)
On 5 April 2017, 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 32017M8293. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-250/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA
Date: 2017-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, cross-border cooperation, damages, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings, services contract








C_2017239EN.01003101.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA
(Case C-250/17)
(2017/C 239/38)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira

Defendant: Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

Question referred

Must the rule in Article 15 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes a lawsuit pending before a Member State seeking an order that a debtor pay a monetary sum due under a service contract and pay monetary damages for failure to comply with that obligation, bearing in mind that: (i) the debtor was declared bankrupt in proceedings commenced in a court in another Member State; and (ii) the declaration of insolvency applies to all of the debtor’s assets?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).