do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-863/16: Order of the General Court of 29 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament (Action for annulment — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Manifest inadmissibility in part — No need to adjudicate in part)
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, financial interests of members, political rights, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2017269EN.01002302.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/23





Order of the General Court of 29 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-863/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Manifest inadmissibility in part - No need to adjudicate in part))
(2017/C 269/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, the debit note of 4 February 2016 relating thereto, and the decision of the Quaestors of 4 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 29 January 2016.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it concerns the claim for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and of the debit note of 4 February 2016 relating thereto, and in so far as it concerns the claim that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the recoverable costs.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it concerns the claim for annulment of the decision of the Quaestors of 4 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 29 January 2016.










3.


The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2322 of 29 May 2017 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Canada, agreement (EU), confidentiality, data protection, exchange of information, ratification of an agreement, signature of an agreement








L_2017333EN.01000101.xml










15.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 333/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/2322
of 29 May 2017
         
concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


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

Whereas:







(1)


At its meeting on 27 and 28 November 2003, the Council decided to authorise the Presidency assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative to open negotiations in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the European Union and Canada.












(2)


Following that authorisation, the Presidency negotiated an Agreement with Canada on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.












(3)


That agreement should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (‘the Agreement’) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 29 May 2017.


For the Council


The President

C. CARDONA
Case C-315/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Pilar Centeno Meléndez v Universidad de Zaragoza
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bonus payment, equal pay, seniority, wage determination, working conditions








C_2017269EN.01000901.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Pilar Centeno Meléndez v Universidad de Zaragoza
(Case C-315/17)
(2017/C 269/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Zaragoza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pilar Centeno Meléndez

Defendant: Universidad de Zaragoza

Questions referred







1.


Is Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June (1) applicable to the horizontal career increment claimed by the applicant, on the basis that it is an employment condition, or, rather, does the increment constitute an element of remuneration with the characteristics described in the present order that depends on the subjective qualities of the recipient which have been gained by working for a number of years under a system based on increasing levels of difficulty and responsibility and on continuity, specialisation and professionalism?










2.


If the previous question is answered in the affirmative and the Court of Justice considers [the increment] to be an employment condition for the purposes of Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement, is the difference in remuneration justified on objective grounds?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP.

OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Case C-312/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European social policy, collective agreement, disability insurance, early retirement, equal treatment, labour standard, pension scheme, remuneration of work, retirement conditions, subsistence level income








C_2017309EN.01002201.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-312/17)
(2017/C 309/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

Defendants: Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Question referred

Is Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the receipt of interim assistance — granted, on the basis of the basic remuneration laid down in the collective agreement, with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence for workers who have lost their jobs until they are able to secure financial protection through entitlement to a pension under the statutory pension scheme — ends once the worker concerned is entitled to receive an early retirement pension, and the application of which is based on the possibility of receiving an early retirement pension on grounds of disability?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case C-321/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 — OJ (*) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, female worker, gender equality, maternity benefit, maternity leave, part-time employment, self-employed person




C_2017382EN.01002701.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 —  OJ (*1) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)
(Case C-321/17)
(2017/C 382/33)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:
 OJ (*1)


Defendants: Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)
By order of 5 October 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.


(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
Case C-308/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Hellenic Republic v Leo Kuhn
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, bond, claim, contract, damages, debt, interest, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2017283EN.01002201.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Hellenic Republic v Leo Kuhn
(Case C-308/17)
(2017/C 283/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Hellenic Republic

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Leo Kuhn

Questions referred

Must Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that:






1.


even in the case — as here — of the repeated contractual transfer of a claim, the place of performance within the meaning of that provision is determined by the first contractual agreement?










2.


in the case of the assertion of a claim seeking compliance with the terms of a government bond such as that specifically issued by the Hellenic Republic in the present case, or seeking damages for non-fulfilment of that claim, the actual place of performance is established immediately upon the payment of interest from that government bond into an account of a person holding a domestic securities portfolio?










3.


the fact that a legal place of performance within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation was established by the first contractual agreement precludes the assumption that the subsequent actual performance of a contract establishes a — further — place of performance within the meaning of that provision?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case C-309/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH v Manfred Bleckwehl
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, gas supply, natural gas, price of energy, private sector








C_2017318EN.01000401.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH v Manfred Bleckwehl
(Case C-309/17)
(2017/C 318/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stadtwerke Delmenhorst GmbH

Defendant: Manfred Bleckwehl

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that failure to give gas customers timely and direct notice of the preconditions and reasons for and the extent of an imminent change in the tariff for gas supplies precludes the effectiveness of such a change in tariff?










2.


If that question is answered in the affirmative:
Has Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, been directly applicable since 1 July 2004 to a supply undertaking incorporated under private law (as a German GmbH), because the abovementioned provisions of that directive are unconditional, so far as their subject matter is concerned, and can therefore be applied without any further implementing act, and confer rights on citizens vis-à-vis an organisation which, despite its private-law legal form, is subject to the authority of the State because the State is the sole shareholder in the undertaking?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.
Case C-320/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Marle Participations SARL v Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, board of management, holding company, parent company, property leasing, share, subsidiary








C_2017269EN.01001001.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Marle Participations SARL v Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances
(Case C-320/17)
(2017/C 269/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État (Council of State, France)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marle Participations SARL

Defendant: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

The Court of Justice is asked to rule on the question as to whether — and, if so, under what conditions — the letting of buildings by a holding company to a subsidiary constitutes a direct or indirect involvement in the management of that subsidiary the effect of which being that the acquisition and holding of shares in that subsidiary are considered economic activities within the meaning of the Directive of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-314/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2017-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, double taxation, supply, tax inspection, tax relief








C_2017256EN.01001501.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-314/17)
(2017/C 256/13)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD

Respondent: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Question referred







1.


Is there a breach of the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax under the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, VAT is levied twice on the same supply, once under the general rules, by the supplier showing the tax in the sales invoice, and a second time, by the customer being charged by means of a tax adjustment notice according to the reverse charge mechanism, and if in practice the right to deduct input VAT is refused and national law makes no provision for the VAT shown in the supplier’s invoice to be rectified following the conclusion of the tax audit procedure?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.