do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-18/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 9 — Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application — Directive 2013/33/EU — First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) — Detention — Verification of identity or nationality — Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 52 — Restriction — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, aid to refugees, foreign national, fundamental rights, imprisonment, nationality, right of asylum








C_2017382EN.01001302.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-18/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application - Directive 2013/33/EU - First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) - Detention - Verification of identity or nationality - Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Restriction - Proportionality))
(2017/C 382/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: K.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 19(2)(a) — Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ — Airline sector — Airline crew — Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 — Concept of ‘home base’)
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic, carrier, civil aviation, crew, establishment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, work contract, workplace








C_2017382EN.01001702.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/17





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)
(Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 19(2)(a) - Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Airline sector - Airline crew - Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 - Concept of ‘home base’))
(2017/C 382/20)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar (C-169/16)

Defendants: Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of proceedings being brought by a member of the air crew, assigned to or employed by an airline, and in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court seised, the concept of ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be equated with that of ‘home base’, within the meaning of Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. The concept of ‘home base’ constitutes nevertheless a significant indicium for the purposes of determining the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’.


(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8590 — Sogecap/Cardif/Diversipierre/Horizon) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2017303EN.01000701.xml










14.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8590 — Sogecap/Cardif/Diversipierre/Horizon)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 303/08)






1.


On 6 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Sogecap SA (‘Sogecap’, France), belonging to the group Société Générale,










—


Cardif Assurance Vie SA (‘Cardif’, France), belonging to the group BNP Paribas,










—


Diversipierre Germany GmbH (‘Diversipierre’, Germany), belonging to the group BNP Paribas,










—


Horizon Development GmbH (‘Horizon’, Germany).




Sogecap, Cardif and Diversipierre acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Horizon.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Sogecap: life-insurance company,
—   for Cardif: life-insurance company,
—   for Diversipierre: real estate holding company,
—   for Horizon: owner of an office building located in Düsseldorf, Germany, which is already leased to a third party.










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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8590 — Sogecap/Cardif/Diversipierre/Horizon
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email:




COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax




+32 22964301




Postal 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-646/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Trust — Trustees — Other legal persons — Meaning — Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State — Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer — Tax payable immediately — Justification — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, capital gains tax, direct tax, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, investment company, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, tax collection, trust








C_2017382EN.01001101.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
(Case C-646/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Trust - Trustees - Other legal persons - Meaning - Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State - Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer - Tax payable immediately - Justification - Proportionality))
(2017/C 382/12)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to freedom of establishment preclude, in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, where the trustees, under national law, are treated as a single and continuing body of persons, distinct from the persons who may from time to time be the trustees, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the taxation of unrealised gains in value of assets held in trust when the majority of the trustees transfer their residence to another Member State, but fails to permit payment of the tax payable to be deferred.


(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8553 — Banco Santander/Banco Popular Group) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, insurance, merger control, parent company








C_2017303EN.01000102.xml










14.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8553 — Banco Santander/Banco Popular Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 303/02)
On 8 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 32017M8553. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Special Report No 12/2017 — ‘Implementing the Drinking Water Directive: water quality and access to it improved in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but investment needs remain substantial’
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Bulgaria, European Regional Development Fund, Hungary, Romania, consumer protection, drinking water, hydraulic works, regional aid, water management, water supply








C_2017303EN.01000401.xml










14.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/4





Special Report No 12/2017
‘Implementing the Drinking Water Directive: water quality and access to it improved in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but investment needs remain substantial’
(2017/C 303/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2017 ‘Implementing the Drinking Water Directive: water quality and access to it improved in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but investment needs remain substantial’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case C-132/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v ‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 — Deduction of input tax — Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party — Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person — Service supplied free of charge to the third party — Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs — Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person)
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, improvement of housing, operating cost, property development, provision of services, real property, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017382EN.01001701.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/17





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v ‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD
(Case C-132/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 - Deduction of input tax - Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party - Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person - Service supplied free of charge to the third party - Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs - Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person))
(2017/C 382/19)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Defendant:‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions.


(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case C-223/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Loss by those entities of the capacities required — National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor)
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, national law








C_2017382EN.01002301.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/23





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.
(Case C-223/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Loss by those entities of the capacities required - National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor))
(2017/C 382/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

Third parties: Consorzio Stabile Infratech, W.E.E. Water Environment Energy SpA, Massimo Fontana, Studio Tecnico Associato Thinkd, Claudio Della Rocca, Nicola Maione, Vittorio Ciotola, Fin.Se.Co. SpA, Edilgen SpA, Site Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility for an economic operator taking part in a tendering procedure to replace an auxiliary undertaking that has lost required qualifications after the submission of its tender and which results in the automatic exclusion of that operator.


(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation — Rights of the defence — Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself — Fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Point 13 — Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement — Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) — Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed — Equal treatment)
Date: 2017-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, electronic component, equal treatment, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), screen, television equipment








C_2017382EN.01000901.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/9





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation - Rights of the defence - Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself - Fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement - Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) - Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed - Equal treatment))
(2017/C 382/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: LG Electronics Inc. (represented by: G. Van Gerven and T. Franchoo, advocaten), Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J.K. de Pree and S. Molin, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, V. Bottka and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016


OJ C 27, 25.1.2016