do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-453/17: Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TV v Council
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, dismissal, probationary period








C_2017347EN.01002901.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/29





Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TV v Council
(Case T-453/17)
(2017/C 347/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: TV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;




Consequently,






—


Annul the decision of 19 August 2016 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probation period, namely 1 September 2016;










—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 4 November 2016;










—


Award the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs.





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 infringement of the obligation to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, in that it confirms the conclusion of the opinion of the Reports Committee (CORAP), which substituted its own evaluation for that of the reporting officers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and law vitiating the grounds on which the probation report is based.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of normal probation conditions.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration.




The applicant is of the opinion, moreover, that the illegalities set out in the pleas for annulment are all failings imputable to the defendant. The applicant is therefore also seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly caused by the contested decisions.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8550 — USSL/Goldman Sachs/Redexis Gas) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, gas pipeline, investment, merger control, natural gas, pension scheme, provision of services, securities








C_2017234EN.01000101.xml










20.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8550 — USSL/Goldman Sachs/Redexis Gas)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 234/01)
On 13 July 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 32017M8550. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-438/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Taus Magamadov
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, foreign national, right of asylum








C_2017347EN.01000902.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Taus Magamadov
(Case C-438/17)
(2017/C 347/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany

Respondent: Taus Magamadov

Questions referred







1.


Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015? Is that in any event the case if, in accordance with Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, the asylum application still falls entirely within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003?










2.


In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications that were lodged before the entry into force of Directive 2013/32/EU and before that extended power was transposed into national law, but that were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition, are inadmissible?






(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Case C-357/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Scope — Debt collection agency — Consumer credit — Assignment of debt — Nature of the legal relationship between the agency and the debtor — Article 2(c) — Concept of ‘product’ — Recovery measures taken in parallel to the intervention of a bailiff)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bailiff, claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, debt, enforcement of ruling, restriction on competition








C_2017300EN.01000602.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/6





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba
(Case C-357/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Scope - Debt collection agency - Consumer credit - Assignment of debt - Nature of the legal relationship between the agency and the debtor - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘product’ - Recovery measures taken in parallel to the intervention of a bailiff))
(2017/C 300/08)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UAB ‘Gelvora’

Defendant: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that the legal relationship between a debt collection agency and the debtor, who has defaulted under a consumer credit agreement and whose debt has been assigned to that agency, falls within the material scope of the directive. The practices in which that agency engages in order to recover that debt fall within the concept of ‘product’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of that directive. In that regard, the fact that the existence of the debt was confirmed by a court decision, and that that decision was passed to a bailiff for enforcement, is without consequence.


(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8553 — Banco Santander/Banco Popular Group) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, insurance, merger control, parent company








C_2017234EN.01001401.xml










20.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8553 — Banco Santander/Banco Popular Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 234/06)






1.


On 14 July 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Banco Santander, S.A. (‘Santander’, Spain) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Banco Popular Español S.A. (‘BPE’, Spain) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Santander, active in banking, treasury and insurance services, is the parent company of an international group of banking and financial companies, operating mainly in Spain, other European countries including Portugal, the United Kingdom, Latin America and the United States,










—


BPE is the parent company of the BPE group, which comprises the following financial entities: Banco Pastor, BPE Banca Privada, TotalBank and Banco BPE Portugal. BPE also holds a stake in Targobank and WiZink. BPE provides banking services as well as insurance services, both in Spain and Portugal. BPE is listed in the Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and Valencia stock exchanges.














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.










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.8553 — Banco Santander/Banco Popular Group, 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’).
Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 — Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, accountant, administrator, audit, competition (EU)








CA2017234EN.01000101.xml










20.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 234/1





RESERVE LISTS (1)

Open competition EPSO/AD/322/16
Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7)
(2017/C 234 A/01)
 

AD 5







AGUSTIÑO MACIAS


Sebastián




ALVAREZ RODRIGUEZ


Miguel




BARTOSZEWSKA


Paulina




BAUTISTA ALPANES


Juan




BENES


Karolina




BENÍTEZ TRUJILLO


Atteneri Nabila




BRIZZI


Maria Pia




BROGI


Simone




BURILLO PONS


Jose Antonio




CASTELEIJN


Jasper




CEREZO SOBRINO


Paloma




CHATZITHEODOROU


Asterios




CHRISTODOULOU


Marios




DA PIEDADE GRAÇA NEVES


Tiago André




DAVIES


Alan Simon




DE BREMAEKER


Nils




DE MUYNCK


Bart




DE OLIVEIRA MAGALHAES


Ines




DECOT


Guillaume




DEL PRETE


Salvatore




DELARUE


Bénédicte




DENTAMARO


Benedetta




DHAENENS


Erik




DOFFEK


Zita




DOVAL TEDÍN


María José




EL TAGHADOUINI


Samir




FERNÁNDEZ DÍEZ


Alberto




FILIPPAKIS


Emmanouil




GARCIA LANZA


Ana




GEORGIOU


Maria




GNECCHI


Marusca




GURIUC


Diana




HENRIKSSON


Kim




HRISTOV


Elin




IVKOV


Stoyan




KAISER


Karolina




KALAYDZHIEVA


Zhivka




KIITSAK


Kristi




KISS


Agnes




KOLEV


Kaloyan




KYRIACOU


Irini




LIAKEA


Stavroula




LÓPEZ DE LA TORRE VERDEJO


Belén




MARINIS


Ioannis




MEIERE


Linda




MONGE RACHO


Alfredo




MORTELMANS


Steven




NIKITAS


Vasilios




PADURARU


Stefan




PARLA HERRADOR


Cristobal




PAŞA


Adina Teodora




PECCHINI


Annachiara




PÉREZ SEGURA


Rocío




PETALAS


Nikolaos




PIKI


Päivi




POSEA


Adriana




REPASI


Zsuzsanna




REY


Nicolas




ROBYNS


Nawal




RUBERG


Lars




SBITRI


Zakaria




SKOURTI


Apostolia




SUAREZ TAGAKI


Juan Yoshiyuki




SZABO


Septimiu-Rares




THILL


Florent




TODERAS


Cristina Rita




VAN DYCK


Violette




VASILE


Marian Cristian




 


 





AD 7







ANTHIS


Stamatios




BARTA-KARA


Krisztina




CASTRO


Felipe




CRAMPON


Emmanuel




DAN


Camelia Mihaela




DECONINCK


Bastiaan




ERNIE


Nicolas




JACZINA


Beáta




LANDI


Lorenza




OIKONOMOU


Chrysoula




PHILIPS


Olivier




RŪME


Kristiāna




SMIRNOVA


Inga




STANDER


Paulus Johannes




VARENINA


Luka




The reserve lists will be valid until 30 June 2020.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.
Case C-440/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, nationality of legal persons, parent company, subsidiary, tax law, tax relief, tax system








C_2017374EN.01001301.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
(Case C-440/17)
(2017/C 374/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GS

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Questions referred







I)


Does Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,
in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and






1.


there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or










2.


the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,




whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from tax on income from capital without regard to the aforementioned requirements?










II)


Should Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (1) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a rule which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,
in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and






1.


there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or










2.


the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose?










(1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8), previously Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).
Case C-206/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 2004/25/EC — Takeover bids — Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) — Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and according to clearly determined circumstances and criteria — National law providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company law, offer price, takeover bid








C_2017300EN.01000501.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-206/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and according to clearly determined circumstances and criteria - National law providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers))
(2017/C 300/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Camfin SpA

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Intervenening parties: Camfin SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, Marco Tronchetti Provera & C. SpA, UniCredit SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which enables a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, provided that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that law, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.


(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Case T-780/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark mediaexpert — Earlier national word mark mediaexpert — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Registration certificate for the earlier mark — Translation — Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business administration, business management, carriage of goods, education, packaging, registered trade mark, sport, storage, trade-mark law








C_2017293EN.01003102.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/31





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)
(Case T-780/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark mediaexpert - Earlier national word mark mediaexpert - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Registration certificate for the earlier mark - Translation - Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations))
(2017/C 293/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2583/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. and Mediaexpert S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.