do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-434/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘personal data’ — Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination — Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers — Article 12(a) and (b) — Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, examination, personal data








C_2018072EN.01002001.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/20





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner
(Case C-434/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination - Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers - Article 12(a) and (b) - Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification))
(2018/C 072/25)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peter Nowak

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the written answers submitted by a candidate at a professional examination and any comments made by an examiner with respect to those answers constitute personal data, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — End of the suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, wholesale trade








C_2017439EN.01001301.xml










20.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/13





Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
End of the suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2017/C 439/09)
On 30 January 2017 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1).
This request, made by Eneco BV, NV Nuon Energy and DONG Energy A/S, concerns production and wholesale of electricity in the Netherlands. The relevant notice was published on page 7 of OJ C 85 of 18 March 2017. The initial deadline was 6 July 2017.
On 24 March 2017 the Commission asked the Dutch Authorities to provide additional information by 19 April 2017 at the latest. As announced in the notice that was published on page 25 of OJ C 212 of 1 July 2017, the final deadline was prolonged by 53 working days after the receipt of the complete and correct information. Complete and correct information was received on 25 September 2017.
The final deadline therefore expires on 12 December 2017.


(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.
Case C-81/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, broadcasting, control of State aid, financial aid, high-definition television, peripheral region, reimbursement of aid, services of general interest








C_2018072EN.01000701.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
(Case C-81/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))
(2018/C 072/08)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Case C-521/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 — Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area — Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned — Jurisdiction — Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 — Article 8(1) and (3) — Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU — Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) — Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 — Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a — Rights of defence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41(1) — Right to good administration — Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU — Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure — Existence of an infringement — Misrepresentations — Determination of the fine — Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: budget deficit, budgetary control, euro area, jurisdiction, retroactivity of a law, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2018072EN.01000301.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
(Case C-521/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 - Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area - Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned - Jurisdiction - Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 - Article 8(1) and (3) - Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU - Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) - Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 - Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a - Rights of defence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41(1) - Right to good administration - Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU - Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure - Existence of an infringement - Misrepresentations - Determination of the fine - Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect))
(2018/C 072/03)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Dumitriu-Segnana, A.F. Jensen and A. de Gregorio Merino, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J.-P. Keppenne, M. Clausen and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Special Report No 23/2017 ‘Single Resolution Board: Work on a challenging Banking Union task started, but still a long way to go’
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, bank, economic recession, economic stabilisation, financial solvency, monetary crisis








C_2017439EN.01001101.xml










20.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/11





Special Report No 23/2017
‘Single Resolution Board: Work on a challenging Banking Union task started, but still a long way to go’
(2017/C 439/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 23/2017 ‘Single Resolution Board: Work on a challenging Banking Union task started, but still a long way to go’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8679 — Blackstone/Banco Popular Real Estate Business) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2017439EN.01000401.xml










20.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8679 — Blackstone/Banco Popular Real Estate Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 439/02)
On 13 December 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 32017M8679. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Action brought on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-11/17)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, financial legislation, financial market, freedom to provide services, investment company, market supervision, right of establishment








C_2018067EN.01001001.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/10





Action brought on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-11/17)
(2018/C 67/10)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that act.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.




Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, as referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case C-649/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Scope — Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, damages, financial solvency, industrial restructuring, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2018072EN.01002601.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/26





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others
(Case C-649/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings))
(2018/C 072/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtschof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, SC Europa ZV II a.s., SC Europa LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., SC Europa BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o

Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., Mesto Banská Bystrica

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action for liability in tort brought against the members of a committee of creditors because of their conduct in voting on a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings, and that such an action is therefore excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case C-268/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Notion of ‘personal benefit’)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Viet Nam, animal production, aquaculture, competition policy, equal treatment, freshwater fish, organic product, right of establishment, right to justice








C_2018072EN.01001102.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/11





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-268/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Notion of ‘personal benefit’))
(2018/C 072/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. von Rintelen and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 March 2016, Binca Seafoods v Commission (T-94/15, not published, EU:T:2016:164);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
Case C-500/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TUE — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, infringement of EU law, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption, tax rebate








C_2018072EN.01002301.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/23





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.
(Case C-500/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemptions - Taxes levied in breach of EU law - Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT - Article 4(3) TUE - Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation - Rights conferred on individuals - Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability - Effects of a judgment of the Court - Principle of legal certainty))
(2018/C 072/30)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

In the presence of: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.


(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case C-255/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S (References for a preliminary ruling — Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations — National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, advertising, game of chance, penalty, technical standard








C_2018072EN.01001101.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S
(Case C-255/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations - National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting))
(2018/C 072/13)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Københavns Byret

Party/parties in the main proceedings

Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal sanctions where an unauthorised offer is made of gaming, lotteries or betting on the national territory, does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive. However, a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for sanctions in the event of advertising for unauthorised gaming, lotteries or betting, does constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive, as it is clear from the travaux préparatoires for that provision of national law that its object and purpose was to extend a pre-existing prohibition on advertising to cover online gaming services, which it is for the national court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.