do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-481/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, State aid, agricultural holding, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, corporation tax, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, tax exemption, terms for aid








C_2017369EN.01000501.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-481/17)
(2017/C 369/06)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nikolay Yanchev

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

Questions referred







1.


Is paragraph 16 of Decision C(2011) 863 final of the European Commission of 11 February 2011, adopted pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, declaring State aid No 546/2010 of the Republic of Bulgaria for investment in agricultural holdings in the form of corporate tax relief to be compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the Commission’s powers, on the one hand, and of the principles of procedural autonomy and legal certainty, on the other, it is permissible to apply a national rule under which the period laid down in that paragraph for reviewing whether the conditions governing the State aid granted have been met is to be construed only as being indicative and not as being an exclusionary period?










2.


Are paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 45 of the Commission Decision, taken together and construed teleologically and in the light of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted as meaning that the lawful receipt/lawful claiming of the aid may be made dependent only on compliance with the national provisions concerning aid implementation specifically mentioned in that Commission Decision, or is it permissible also to require compliance with further conditions under national law which do not pursue the objectives served by the granting of the State aid?
Case C-483/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 August 2017 — Neculai Tarola v Minister for Social Protection
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, free movement of workers, freedom of movement, migrant worker, social assistance, social-security benefit, unemployed person








C_2017347EN.01001801.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 August 2017 — Neculai Tarola v Minister for Social Protection
(Case C-483/17)
(2017/C 347/23)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Neculai Tarola

Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

Question referred

Where a citizen of another EU member state after his first twelve months of exercising his right of free movement arrives in the host state and works (otherwise than for a fixed term contract) for a two week period for which he is remunerated and thereafter becomes involuntarily unemployed, does that citizen thereby retain the status of a worker for no less than a further six months for the purposes of Article 7(3)(c) and Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) such as would entitle him to receive social assistance payments or, as the case may be, social security benefits on the same basis as if he were a resident citizen of the host State?


(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017259EN.01000201.xml










9.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 August 2017
(2017/C 259/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1814 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4386 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90678 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5980 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1478 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3225 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,150 




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,49 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2554 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5638 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1686 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4882 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4959 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2424 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6036 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6072 




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,82 




ZAR


South African rand


15,5533 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9163 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4005 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 727,98 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0629 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,632 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,8912 




THB


Thai baht


39,276 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6918 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1534 




INR


Indian rupee


75,1865 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8572 — Pamplona Capital/Parexel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biotechnology, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, research and development








C_2017259EN.01000901.xml










9.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8572 — Pamplona Capital/Parexel)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 259/05)






1.


On 1 August 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Pamplona Capital (UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Parexel International Corporation (USA) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   For Pamplona Capital: global private equity investment, providing an investment platform across private equity, fund of hedge funds and single manager hedge fund investments.
—   For Prexel International Corporation: biopharmaceutical outsourcing services, providing a broad range of expertise in clinical research, clinical logistics, medical communications, consulting, commercialization and advanced technology products and services to the worldwide pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device industries.










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 the 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.8572 — Pamplona Capital/Parexel, 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.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1434 of 7 August 2017 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 8 August 2017 (OJ L 205, 8.8.2017)
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, cereals, common organisation of markets, import (EU)








L_2017206EN.01001501.xml










9.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 206/15







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1434 of 7 August 2017 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 8 August 2017
         

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 205 of 8 August 2017
)


On page 67, Annex II should read as follows:



‘ANNEX II

Factors for calculating the duties laid down in Annex I









1.


Averages over the reference period referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010:







(EUR/t)




 


Common wheat (1)



Maize




Exchange


Minneapolis


Chicago




Quotation


241,54


123,83




Gulf of Mexico premium


—


11,46




Great Lakes premium


31,54


—
















2.


Averages over the reference period referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010:






Freight costs: Gulf of Mexico-Rotterdam


16,58 EUR/t




Freight costs: Great Lakes-Rotterdam


39,83 EUR/t










                  ’
               


(1)  Premium of EUR 14/t incorporated (Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 642/2010).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8560 — HAPM/Magna/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2017259EN.01000101.xml










9.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8560 — HAPM/Magna/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 259/01)
On 2 August 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 32017M8560. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-531/17: Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Promociones Santa Rosa v SRB
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017369EN.01002201.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/22





Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Promociones Santa Rosa v SRB
(Case T-531/17)
(2017/C 369/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Promociones Santa Rosa, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Carrión Matamoros, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June (non-confidential version) of the Executive Committee of the Single Resolution Board adopting the resolution scheme of the Banco Popular Español, S.A., on the basis of infringement of Articles 7, 18(1) and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, as well as the artificial alteration of the immediate causes which resulted in the institution’s resolution.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8524 — Advent International Corporation/Industrial Parts Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, industrial product, investment company, logistics, merger control








C_2017259EN.01000801.xml










9.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8524 — Advent International Corporation/Industrial Parts Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 259/04)






1.


On 1 August 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Advent International Corporation (USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Industrial Parts Holding (France) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   For Advent International Corporation: private equity investment, focused on the acquisition of equity stakes and the management of investment funds in various sectors, including business and financial services; industrial goods and services; retail operations, branded consumer goods, and leisure services; media, telecommunications, and information technology; and healthcare services and pharmaceuticals.
—   For Industrial Parts Holding: distribution of industrial parts by providing a logistic link between suppliers and customers in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Switzerland through ten autonomous commercial networks.










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 the 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.8524 — Advent International Corporation/Industrial Parts Holding, 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 C-478/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, matrimonial law








C_2017347EN.01001701.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
(Case C-478/17)
(2017/C 347/22)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: IQ

Respondent: JP

Questions referred







1.


Does the expression ‘the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter’ which appears in Article 15 of the Brussels II Regulation (1) refer equally to courts hearing the case at first instance and to courts of appeal? It is important to know whether the case may be transferred, on the basis of that provision, to a court better placed to hear it if the court having jurisdiction and being asked to transfer the case to a better placed court is a court of appeal, while the better placed court is a court of first instance.










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, how is the court having jurisdiction and transferring the case to a better placed court to deal with the judgment at first instance?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
Case C-480/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
Date: 2017-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: lawyer, professional society, right of establishment, social-security contribution, supplementary pension, tax on income, tax relief








C_2017382EN.01003201.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
(Case C-480/17)
(2017/C 382/39)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Frank Montag

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude a national rule under which compulsory contributions to an occupational pension scheme made by a non-resident taxpayer (on the basis of his membership of a bar association in the Member State, which is mandatory on professional grounds for the purposes of his activity carried on in several Member States) are not treated as deductible from income within the framework of limited tax liability, whereas in the case of resident taxpayers national law permits their deduction from income up to a specific ceiling within the framework of unlimited tax liability?










2.


Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where, in addition to his compulsory contributions, the taxpayer makes additional (voluntary) contributions to the occupational pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability?










3.


Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where the taxpayer, independently of his admission as a lawyer and his contributions to an occupational pension scheme, makes contributions to a voluntary private pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability?