do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8452 — Suez/GE Water &amp; Process Technologies) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, wastewater, water treatment








C_2017377EN.01000601.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8452 — Suez/GE Water & Process Technologies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 377/06)
On 19 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 32017M8452. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-298/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Teodor Ispas, Anduţa Ispas v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — General principles of EU law — Right to good administration and rights of the defence — National tax rules providing for the right to be heard and the right to be informed during an administrative tax procedure — Decision to levy value added tax issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents upon which that decision was based)
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, access to information, administrative procedure, basis of tax assessment, general legal principle, right to information, rights of the defence, tax authorities, tax law








C_2018005EN.01001001.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Teodor Ispas, Anduţa Ispas v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-298/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - General principles of EU law - Right to good administration and rights of the defence - National tax rules providing for the right to be heard and the right to be informed during an administrative tax procedure - Decision to levy value added tax issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents upon which that decision was based))
(2018/C 005/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Teodor Ispas, Anduţa Ispas

Defendant: Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

The general principle of EU law of respect for the rights of the defence must be interpreted as a requirement that, in national administrative procedures of inspection and establishment of the basis for the assessment of value added tax, an individual is to have the opportunity to have communicated to him, at his request, the information and documents in the administrative file and considered by the public authority when it adopted its decision, unless objectives of public interest warrant restricting access to that information and those documents.


(1)  OJ C 314, 29.08.2016.
Case C-481/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to recover — Obligation to provide information — Non-implementation — Pleas in defence — Absolute impossibility of implementation)
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, disclosure of information, mining extraction, reimbursement of aid








C_2018005EN.01001201.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/12





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-481/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Obligation to recover - Obligation to provide information - Non-implementation - Pleas in defence - Absolute impossibility of implementation))
(2018/C 005/15)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and V. Karra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on State aid SA.34572 (13/C ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA, and by failing to inform the European Commission of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 to 5 of that decision and the FEU Treaty;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016
Case C-631/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 November 2017 — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bahamas, Latvia, Netherlands, crew, debt, frontier worker, residence, social security legislation, vessel








C_2018063EN.01000501.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 November 2017 — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
(Case C-631/17)
(2018/C 063/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SF

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Question referred

The legislation of which Member State is designated by Regulation No 883/2004 (1) in a situation in which the person concerned (a) resides in Latvia, (b) has Latvian nationality, (c) is employed by an employer established in the Netherlands, (d) works as a seafarer, (e) works on board a vessel at sea flying the flag of the Bahamas, and (f) performs those activities outside the territory of the European Union?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Case C-98/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain)) — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Male and female workers — Equal treatment in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — ‘Vertical’ part-time worker — Unemployment benefit — National legislation excluding days not worked from the contribution period for the purpose of establishing the duration of the benefit)
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, framework agreement, gender equality, part-time employment, social security legislation, unemployment insurance








C_2018005EN.01000201.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain)) — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)
(Case C-98/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Male and female workers - Equal treatment in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - ‘Vertical’ part-time worker - Unemployment benefit - National legislation excluding days not worked from the contribution period for the purpose of establishing the duration of the benefit))
(2018/C 005/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: María Begoña Espadas Recio

Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, is not applicable to a contributory unemployment benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings.










2.


Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work, excludes days not worked from the calculation of days in respect of which contributions have been paid, and therefore reduces the unemployment benefit payment period, when it is established that the majority of vertical part-time workers are women who are adversely affected by such legislation.






(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015
Case C-306/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 5 — Weekly rest period — National legislation providing for at least one rest day per seven-day period — Periods of more than six consecutive working days)
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, legal working time, occupational safety, weekly rest period








C_2018005EN.01001002.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA
(Case C-306/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 5 - Weekly rest period - National legislation providing for at least one rest day per seven-day period - Periods of more than six consecutive working days))
(2018/C 005/13)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa

Defendant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not requiring the minimum uninterrupted weekly rest period of 24 hours to which a worker is entitled to be provided no later than the day following a period of six consecutive working days, but requires that rest period to be provided within each seven-day period.


(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Case C-423/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — HX v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Restrictive measures against a person listed in an annex to a decision — Extension of the validity of that decision during proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Request to modify the application in the course of the hearing and not by a separate document — Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Bulgarian language version — Annulment by the General Court of the original decision placing the person concerned on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Expiry of the extension decision — Continuation of the interest in bringing legal proceedings in relation to the modification of the application)
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2018005EN.01001101.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — HX v Council of the European Union
(Case C-423/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Restrictive measures against a person listed in an annex to a decision - Extension of the validity of that decision during proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Request to modify the application in the course of the hearing and not by a separate document - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Bulgarian language version - Annulment by the General Court of the original decision placing the person concerned on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures - Expiry of the extension decision - Continuation of the interest in bringing legal proceedings in relation to the modification of the application))
(2018/C 005/14)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev, аdvokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part:

The Court (First Chamber) hereby:






1)


Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, HX v Council (T-723/14, EU:T:2016:332);










2)


Declares that there is no longer a need to adjudicate on the request to modify the application submitted by HX before the General Court of the European Union;










3)


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by HX both at first instance and in the present appeal.






(1)  OJ C 350, 26.09.2016
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8643 — Legend Holdings Corporation/Banque Internationale à Luxembourg) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2017377EN.01000501.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/5





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8643 — Legend Holdings Corporation/Banque Internationale à Luxembourg)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 377/04)
On 31 October 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 32017M8643. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017377EN.01000701.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/7





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 November 2017
(2017/C 377/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1590 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,54 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4434 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88405 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7288 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1581 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4730 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,560 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,85 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2341 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6280 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,5050 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5094 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4753 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0363 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6724 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5786 




KRW


South Korean won


1 290,33 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4417 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6838 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5390 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 667,36 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8960 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,388 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,7166 




THB


Thai baht


38,374 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7662 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1015 




INR


Indian rupee


75,3205 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-649/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Public broadcasting service — Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Judgment in Altmark)
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, broadcasting, control of State aid, public sector, services of general interest, television








C_2018005EN.01000302.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd
(Case C-649/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Public broadcasting service - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Judgment in Altmark))
(2018/C 005/04)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Appellant: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, advokater)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Commission and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd both at first instance and in relation to this appeal;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, fuel, hydrogen








C_2017377EN.01000801.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/8





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2017/C 377/08)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


25 July 2017





Case No



:


80833





Decision No



:


145/17/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Region



:


Akershus





Title



:


Operating aid scheme for hydrogen refuelling stations in the county of Akershus





Legal basis



:


The County Council’s Hydrogen Strategy for 2014-2025 adopted on 17 March 2014, the Action Plan for Akershus 2015-2016 and Guidelines for the scheme adopted by the County Council.





Type of measure



:


Scheme





Objective



:


Environmental protection





Form of aid



:


Direct grants





Budget



:


NOK 5 million per year





Duration



:


5 years





Economic sectors



:


Retail services





Name and address of the granting authority



:


Akershus County Council





Other information



:




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case T-742/17: Action brought on 9 November 2017 — Kim and Others v Council
Date: 2017-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: North Korea, data protection, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, personal data, rights of the defence








C_2018013EN.01002801.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/28





Action brought on 9 November 2017 — Kim and Others v Council
(Case T-742/17)
(2018/C 013/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Il-Su Kim (Pyongyang, North Korea), Song-Sam Kang (Hamburg, Germany), Chun-Sik Choe (Pyongyang), Kyu-Nam Sin (Pyongyang) and Chun-San Pak (Pyongyang) (represented by: M. Lester, QC, S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Council Regulation 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007, insofar as it applies to them;










—


order the Defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the Applicants.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the Applicants’ case; there is no factual basis for their inclusion.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has breached the Applicants’ right to equal treatment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has breached the Applicants’ rights of defence by failing to provide them with the evidence on which the Defendant relies before re-listing the Applicants.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has breached data protection law.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of his property, business, and reputation.