do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-608/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: loss, nationality of legal persons, ownership, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2018005EN.01002401.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB
(Case C-608/17)
(2018/C 005/32)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Holmen AB

Questions referred









1.


In order for a parent company in one Member State to have the right — which follows from, inter alia, the case of Marks & Spencer — on the basis of Article 49 TFEU to deduct definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State, is it necessary that the subsidiary be directly owned by the parent company?












2.


Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive?












3.


In the assessment of whether a loss is definitive, must account be taken of the fact that, under the rules in the subsidiary’s State, the possibility for parties other than the party making the loss itself to deduct the loss is restricted?












4.


If account is to be taken of a restriction such as that referred to in question 3, must regard be had to the extent to which the restriction has in fact led to it not being possible to set off any part of the losses against profits made by another party?
P8_TA(2017)0394 Common Fisheries Policy: implementation of the landing obligation ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2017)0424 — C8-0239/2017 — 2017/0190(COD)) P8_TC1-COD(2017)0190 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 24 October 2017 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament
Subjects: authorised catch, catch by species, catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2018346EN.01036301.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/363






P8_TA(2017)0394
Common Fisheries Policy: implementation of the landing obligation ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2017)0424 — C8-0239/2017 — 2017/0190(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
(2018/C 346/48)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0424),










—


having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0239/2017),










—


having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 October 2017,










—


having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 20 September 2017 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0285/2017),












1.


Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;












2.


Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;












3.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.








P8_TC1-COD(2017)0190
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 24 October 2017 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2017/2092.)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017358EN.01000501.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 October 2017
(2017/C 358/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1740 




JPY


Japanese yen


133,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4437 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89090 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6440 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1581 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3883 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,641 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,06 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2266 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6000 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,3386 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5018 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4835 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1607 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6838 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5996 




KRW


South Korean won


1 326,40 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0711 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7957 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5070 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 888,92 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9718 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,458 




RUB


Russian rouble


67,4375 




THB


Thai baht


38,965 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7493 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,2922 




INR


Indian rupee


76,3365 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-610/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Satamaoperaattorit ry
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, incapacity for work, paid leave, wage earner








C_2018013EN.01000802.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Satamaoperaattorit ry
(Case C-610/17)
(2018/C 013/10)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Defendant: Satamaoperaattorit ry

Other party: Kemi Shipping Oy

Questions referred







(1)


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude a national provision in a collective agreement, or its interpretation, under which an employee whose incapacity for work on account of illness commences during his annual leave, or a part thereof, is not entitled, irrespective of any application by him, to carry over the first six days of incapacity for work falling within the annual leave, where those days of absence on account of illness do not reduce the employee’s entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave?










(2)


Does Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have direct legal effect in an employment relationship between private legal subjects, that is to say, direct horizontal legal effect?










(3)


Does Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protect accrued leave, in so far as the duration of the leave exceeds the minimum annual leave of four weeks provided for in Article 7(1) of the Working Time Directive, and does that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude a national provision in a collective agreement, or its interpretation, under which an employee whose incapacity for work on account of illness commences during his annual leave, or a part thereof, is not entitled, irrespective of any application by him, to carry over the first six days of incapacity for work falling within the annual leave, where those days of absence on account of illness do not reduce the employee’s entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1933 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Burundi, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2017358EN.01000301.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/3





Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1933 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi
(2017/C 358/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1933 (2) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 (3) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/1933 and in Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2015/1755, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 2 July 2018, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 6 of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/1933 and Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 of the list of designated persons.
The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 257, 2.10.2015, p. 37.

(2)  OJ L 273, 24.10.2017, p. 9.

(3)  OJ L 257, 2.10.2015, p. 1.
Case C-607/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: loss, nationality of legal persons, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2018005EN.01002302.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB
(Case C-607/17)
(2018/C 005/31)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Memira Holding AB

Questions referred







1.


Must account be taken, in the assessment of whether a loss in a subsidiary in another Member State is definitive within the meaning given in, inter alia, the case of A, and the parent company may thus deduct the loss on the basis of Article 49 TFEU, of the fact that, under the rules of the subsidiary’s State, there are restrictions on the possibility for parties other than the party itself which made the loss to deduct the loss?










2.


If a restriction such as that referred to in question 1 must be taken into consideration, must account then be taken of whether, in the case in question, there actually is another party in the subsidiary’s State which could have deducted the losses if that were permitted there?
Case C-19/17: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 24 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa reprezentowany przez Wojewodę Dolnośląskiego v Gmina Trzebnica
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Structural Funds, aid recipient, co-financing, contract terms, development aid, eligible region, regional aid








C_2018013EN.01001003.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/10





Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 24 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa reprezentowany przez Wojewodę Dolnośląskiego v Gmina Trzebnica
(Case C-19/17) (1)

(2018/C 013/14)
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Joined Cases C-655/16 and C-656/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16) v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — 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 in line with clearly determined criteria — National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller)
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, offer price, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, takeover bid, transparency in decision-making








C_2018005EN.01001601.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/16





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16) v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Joined Cases C-655/16 and C-656/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - 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 in line with clearly determined criteria - National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller))
(2018/C 005/21)
Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16)

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

Interveners: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp, Bluebell Partners Limited, Elliot International Lp, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliot Associates L.P.

Operative part of the order

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 national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows 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, on condition that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that legislation, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.


(1)  OJ C 121, 18.04.2017.
Case C-609/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö (TSN) ry v Hyvinvointialan liitto ry
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, incapacity for work, paid leave, wage earner








C_2018013EN.01000801.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö (TSN) ry v Hyvinvointialan liitto ry
(Case C-609/17)
(2018/C 013/09)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö (TSN) ry

Defendant: Hyvinvointialan liitto ry

Other party: Fimlab Laboratoriot Oy

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude a national provision in a collective agreement, or its interpretation, under which an employee who was incapacitated for work at the beginning of his annual leave or part thereof is not entitled, irrespective of any application by him, to carry over annual leave falling within the period in question and to which he is entitled under the collective agreement, if the employee’s entitlement to four weeks of annual leave is not reduced by reason of the fact that the leave under the collective agreement is not carried over?










2.


Does Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have direct legal effect in an employment relationship between private legal subjects, that is to say, direct horizontal legal effect?










3.


Does Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protect accrued leave, in so far as the duration of the leave exceeds the minimum annual leave of four weeks provided for in Article 7(1) of the Working Time Directive, and does that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude a national provision in a collective agreement, or its interpretation, under which an employee who was incapacitated for work at the beginning of his annual leave or part thereof is not entitled, irrespective of any application by him, to carry over annual leave falling within the period in question and to which he is entitled under the collective agreement, if the employee’s entitlement to four weeks of annual leave is not reduced by reason of the fact that the leave under the collective agreement is not carried over?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Notice concerning the provisional application of the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, of the other part
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Afghanistan, cooperation agreement (EU), cooperation policy, development aid, interim agreement (EU)








L_2017273EN.01000101.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 273/1







Notice concerning the provisional application of the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, of the other part (1)


The European Union and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for the provisional application of the Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, of the other part on 3 October 2017. Consequently, the Agreement applies provisionally in accordance with Article 59(3) of that Agreement as from 1 December 2017.
By virtue of Article 3 of Council Decision (EU) 2017/434 of 13 February 2017 on the signing and provisional application of the Agreement, the following provisions of the Agreement shall be applied provisionally between the Union the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, but only to the extent that they cover matters falling within the Union's competence, including matters falling within the Union's competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy:






 


Article 2 (General principles);










 


Article 3 (Political dialogue);










 


Article 4 (Human rights);










 


Article 5 (Gender equality);










 


Title III (Development cooperation);










 


Title IV (Cooperation on trade and investment matters);










 


Article 28 (Cooperation on migration);










 


Title VII (Regional cooperation);










 


Title VIII (Institutional framework) to the extent that the provisions of that Title are limited to the purpose of ensuring the provisional application of the Agreement;










 


Title IX (Final provisions) to the extent that the provisions of that Title are limited to the purpose of ensuring the provisional application of the Agreement.






(1)  
            OJ L 67, 14.3.2017, p. 3.