do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-312/17: Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Campbell v Commission
Date: 2017-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, disclosure of information, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, provision of documents, right to information








C_2017249EN.01003101.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/31






Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Campbell v Commission
(Case T-312/17)
(2017/C 249/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. (1)






Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law.










5.


Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law.






(1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010, L 280, p. 1).
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, electronics industry, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2017174EN.01000401.xml










1.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/4





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 174/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 3237


22 May 2017


Ammonium dichromate
EC No 232-143-1
CAS No 7789-09-5


Micrometal GmbH, Renkenrusstrasse 24, 79639 Müllheim, Germany


REACH/17/13/0


Use as photosensitiser for the production of micro components


21 September 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case C-571/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — External transit procedure — Goods transported through a free port located in a Member State — Legislation of that Member State excluding free ports from its national fiscal territory — Removal from customs supervision — Incurrence of a customs debt and chargeability of VAT)
Date: 2017-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, customs duties, customs inspection, customs territory (EU), customs transit, free zone, transit, transport under customs control








C_2017249EN.01000502.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/5






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen
(Case C-571/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - External transit procedure - Goods transported through a free port located in a Member State - Legislation of that Member State excluding free ports from its national fiscal territory - Removal from customs supervision - Incurrence of a customs debt and chargeability of VAT))
(2017/C 249/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first paragraph of Article 61 and the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to ‘one of the arrangements or situations referred to’ in Article 156 of that directive includes free zones.










2.


Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the removal of goods from customs supervision in a free zone does not give rise to the chargeable event or make import value added tax chargeable if those goods did not enter the economic network of the European Union, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.










3.


The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a customs debt arises by virtue of Article 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, and no value added tax debt is consequently incurred, on account of the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, Article 204 of the latter regulation may not be applied for the sole purpose of providing a basis for charging value added tax.






(1)  
            OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.