do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-328/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum — Periodic penalty payment)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Attica, periodic penalty payment, sanction (EU), sensitive area, wastewater, water treatment








C_2018134EN.01000501.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-328/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum - Periodic penalty payment))
(2018/C 134/06)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, E. Manhaeve and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385) the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.










2.


Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Hellenic Republic be required to pay to the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 3 276 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385) has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion representing the number of population equivalent units that have actually been brought into compliance with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), in the Thriasio Pedio area, at the end of the period in question, in comparison to the number of population equivalent units that have not been brought into compliance with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), on the day of delivery of the present judgment.










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 million.










4.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case T-288/07: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — Alcan France v Commission
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Ireland, Italy, State aid, aluminium, chemical industry, control of State aid, excise duty, mineral oil, tax exemption








C_2018134EN.01003902.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/39





Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — Alcan France v Commission
(Case T-288/07) (1)

(2018/C 134/56)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8540 — Kuehne + Nagel/Kuehne + Nagel Drinksflow Logistics) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage, distributor, economic concentration, foodstuff, logistics, merger control, provision of services, storage








C_2018067EN.01000202.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8540 — Kuehne + Nagel/Kuehne + Nagel Drinksflow Logistics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 67/03)
On 8 February 2018, 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 32018M8540. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-125/17: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Free movement of capital — Articles 64 and 65 TFEU — Directive 2011/16/EU — Cooperation in the field of taxation — Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State — Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad — Repeal)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European tax cooperation, Holy See, administrative offence, free movement of capital, payment, tax exemption, tax law, tax offence








C_2018166EN.01001702.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/17





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma
(Case C-125/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Free movement of capital - Articles 64 and 65 TFEU - Directive 2011/16/EU - Cooperation in the field of taxation - Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State - Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad - Repeal))
(2018/C 166/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Luigi Bisignani

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

Operative part of the order

Article 64(1) and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which definitively repeals the offence of not declaring transfers of funds abroad.


(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case T-104/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, food industry, food safety, innovation, legality, principle of proportionality, product quality, research and development, self-employed person








C_2018134EN.01003602.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/36





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
(Case T-104/18)
(2018/C 134/52)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (representatives: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;










—


Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required;










—


Order the REA to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the outcome of the inter partes financial recovery procedure in respect of the project FP7-SME-2013-605879-FOODWATCH grant agreement. The decision to terminate the FoodWatch grant agreement has its origin in the alleged failure to inform the applicant of the existence of the BreadGuard Project which, in the REA’s view, bore strong similarities to the FoodWatch project in terms of objectives, working methods and expected results.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure.










2.


The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.










3.


The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged.










4.


The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted.










5.


The fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on account of the failure to take into account the degree of fault on the part of each of the participants in the conduct alleged.
Case C-396/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency) v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 184 and 185 — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted — Notion of ‘transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid’ — Effect of a decision approving an arrangement with creditors having the force of res judicata)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, claim, composition, debt, tax relief








C_2018134EN.01000701.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency) v Republika Slovenija
(Case C-396/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 184 and 185 - Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid - Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted - Notion of ‘transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid’ - Effect of a decision approving an arrangement with creditors having the force of res judicata))
(2018/C 134/08)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency)

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors constitutes a change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted, for the purposes of that provision.










2.


The first subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors does not constitute a case of a transaction remaining totally or partially unpaid that does not give rise to an adjustment of the initial deduction, where that reduction is definitive, although that is a matter for the referring court to determine.










3.


The second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that, in order to implement the option provided for in that provision, a Member State is not required to make express provision for an obligation to adjust the deductions in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid.






(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Case T-105/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01003701.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/37





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)
(Case T-105/18)
(2018/C 134/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: André Deray (Bry-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charles Claire LLP (Weybridge Surrey, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE — Application for registration No 015 064 462

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1244/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


order EUIPO and Charles Claire LLP to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the administrative proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation No 2017/1001.