do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Decision
Date: 2017-11-15
Institutions: European Commission, European Parliament, Secretariat-General
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, competition (EU), recruitment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017432EN.01000101.xml










15.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/1





DECISION
(2017/C 432/01)
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,






—


HAVING REGARD TO Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (2) and most recently by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in particular Article 30 of those Staff Regulations,










—


HAVING REGARD TO the Bureau Decision of 13 January 2014 on the delegation of the powers of the appointing authority and of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE),










—


HAVING REGARD TO the expiry date of 31 December 2017 set for the following European Parliament reserve lists:
AD/1/12, AD/1/13, AD5/13, PE/179/S, PE/165/S, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, AST/4/11, AST/1/13,










—


Whereas the Joint Committee has been asked to deliver an opinion within 15 working days, in accordance with Article 10a of the Staff Regulations,




HAS DECIDED
Article 1
The period of validity of the following reserve lists:






 


AD/1/13, PE/179/S, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, AST/1/13, AST/4/11,




shall be extended until 31 December 2018.
Article 2
The period of validity of the following reserve lists:






 


AD/1/12, AD/5/13, PE/165/S (T)




shall not be extended.

Luxembourg, 15 November 2017.

Klaus WELLE

Secretary-General





(1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 15.
Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundefinanzhof — Germany) — Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L v Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin (C-375/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 226(5) — Deduction of input tax — Compulsory content of invoices — Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct)
Date: 2017-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business location, invoicing, tax relief








C_2018022EN.01001201.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/12





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundefinanzhof — Germany) — Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L v Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin (C-375/16)
(Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 226(5) - Deduction of input tax - Compulsory content of invoices - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))
(2018/C 022/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundefinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L. (C-374/16), Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (C-375/16)

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), Igor Butin (C-375/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 226(5) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to the condition that the address where the issuer of an invoice carries out its economic activity must be indicated on the invoice.


(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
European Parliament decision of 15 November 2017 on the nomination of Hannu Takkula as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0330/2017 — 2017/0814(NLE))
Date: 2017-11-15
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








C_2018356EN.01014901.xml










4.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 356/149






P8_TA(2017)0432
Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Hannu Takkula
European Parliament decision of 15 November 2017 on the nomination of Hannu Takkula as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0330/2017 — 2017/0814(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 356/27)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0330/2017),










—


having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0338/2017),










A.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










B.


whereas at its meeting of 19 October 2017 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;












1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Hannu Takkula as a Member of the Court of Auditors;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
European Parliament decision of 15 November 2017 on the nomination of Pietro Russo as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0329/2017 — 2017/0813(NLE))
Date: 2017-11-15
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








C_2018356EN.01014801.xml










4.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 356/148






P8_TA(2017)0431
Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Pietro Russo
European Parliament decision of 15 November 2017 on the nomination of Pietro Russo as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0329/2017 — 2017/0813(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 356/26)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0329/2017),










—


having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0337/2017),










A.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










B.


whereas at its meeting of 19 October 2017 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;












1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Pietro Russo as a Member of the Court of Auditors;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
Case C-639/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 November 2017 — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, likvidējamās AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ administratore v kip
Date: 2017-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, credit institution, electronic money, financial solvency








C_2018052EN.01001701.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 November 2017 — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, likvidējamās AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ administratore v kip
(Case C-639/17)
(2018/C 052/23)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, likvidējamās AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ administratore

Other party to the appeal in cassation: SIA ‘Ķipars AI’

Questions referred







(1)


Does the term ‘transfer order’, for the purposes of Directive 98/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC, (2) include a payment order given by a depositor to a credit institution for the transfer of funds to another credit institution?










(2)


If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 3(1) of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC, which provides that ‘transfer orders and netting shall be legally enforceable and binding on third parties even in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant, provided that transfer orders were entered into the system before the moment of opening of such insolvency proceedings as defined in Article 6(1). This shall apply even in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant (in the system concerned or in an interoperable system) or against the system operator of an interoperable system which is not a participant’, be interpreted as meaning that an order such as that in the present case could be regarded as ‘entered into the system’ and had to be executed?






(1)  OJ 1998, L 166, p. 45.

(2)  OJ 2009, L 146, p. 37.