do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision of 27 November 2017 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2017
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, commitment of expenditure, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU), own resources








C_2017404EN.01000101.xml










29.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/1





COUNCIL DECISION
of 27 November 2017
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2017
(2017/C 404/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2017 was definitively adopted on 1 December 2016 (2),










—


on 9 October 2017, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for the financial year 2017,










—


for needs related to national Treasury management, draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for 2017 needs to be adopted without delay. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the 8-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 was adopted on 27 November 2017.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, on 27 November 2017.


For the Council


The President

M. MAASIKAS




(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 51, 28.2.2017, p. 1.
Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-501/17 (OJ C 338, 9.10.2017)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017402EN.01005701.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/57





Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-501/17
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 338 of 9 October 2017
)
(2017/C 402/75)
The Notice in Case T-501/17 Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB should read as follows:

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB
(Case T-501/17)
(2017/C 338/17)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Solana López, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare invalid, and consequently annul, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. transmitted to it by the Single Resolution Board, and also annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EEX/2017/08) on the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. with identification No 80H66LPTDLMOP28XF25;










—


In the alternative, if the General Court does not uphold the invalidity application above, declare the partial invalidity and annul in part SRB’s decision mentioned above in so far as it concerns Article 6(1)(b) and (c) of that decision, relating to the conversion and depreciation of 64 695 preference shares (classified erroneously as additional capital Tier 1 instruments of the Banco Popular Español), although they were instruments issued by POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. (ISIN D00910702).





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised 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 Alvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
Case C-664/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 27 November 2017 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE v Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Οthers
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: entrepreneur, establishment, labour law, liquidation, transfer of businesses








C_2018032EN.01001701.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 27 November 2017 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE v Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Οthers
(Case C-664/17)
(2018/C 032/24)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE

Respondents: Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Οthers

Questions referred







1.


On the true meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/50/EC (1) and in order to establish whether or not there is a transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business, is ‘economic entity’ to be understood as a completely self-sufficient production unit which is capable of operating to attain its economic object without in any way seeking (purchasing, borrowing, leasing and so forth) factors of production (raw materials, manpower, machinery, components of the finished product, support services, financial resources and so forth) from third parties? Or, on the contrary, does it suffice, in order to qualify as an ‘economic entity’, that the subject matter of the activity is distinct, that that subject matter is in fact able to constitute the object of an economic endeavour and that it is feasible to effectively organise the factors of production (raw materials, machinery and other equipment, manpower and support services) to attain the object in question, irrespective of whether or not the new operator of the activity also seeks outside factors of production, or fails to attain the object in a particular instance?










2.


On the true meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/50/EC, is the existence of a transfer precluded where the transferor or transferee or both of them have in view not only the successful continuance of the activity under the new operator, but also its future cessation for the purpose of winding up the undertaking in question?






(1)  Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88).
Case C-666/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, control of State aid, data protection, document, provision of documents








C_2018112EN.01000801.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/8





Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission
(Case C-666/17 P)
(2018/C 112/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, J. A. Guerrero Pérez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the judgment;










—


annul the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1)


First Plea: Error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in relation to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations






—


The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general presumptions in relation to the application of exception to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;










—


The Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of ongoing investigations in relation to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;










—


The Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights); and










—


The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).














2)


Second Plea: Failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version of an on-site access to the documents.