do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-159/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Revocation of identification for VAT purposes — Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked — Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax authorities, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2018161EN.01001301.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/13





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa
(Case C-159/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Revocation of identification for VAT purposes - Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked - Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period))
(2018/C 161/15)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

Respondents: Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 to 169 and 179, Articles 213(1) and 214(1), and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that, on account of the alleged infringements committed by that person, the tax authorities could not have access to the information necessary to establish that the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to deduct input value added tax paid by that taxable person have been satisfied or that that person acted fraudulently in order to enjoy that right, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case T-855/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA (REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Exceeding of financial ceilings — Concept of ‘linked enterprise’)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid to undertakings, chemicals legislation, payment, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2018142EN.01004801.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/48





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA
(Case T-855/16) (1)

((REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Exceeding of financial ceilings - Concept of ‘linked enterprise’))
(2018/C 142/63)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fertisac, SL (Atarfe, Spain) (represented by: J. Gomez Rodriguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux and L. Tosoni, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision SME(2016) 5150 of 15 November 2016, which states that the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions required in order to benefit from a reduced fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposes payment of an administrative charge and invoices Nos 10060160 and 10060161 issued by the ECHA and annexed to Decision SME(2016) 5150.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fertisac, SL to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case C-560/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 22(2) — Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State — Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder — Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: establishment, jurisdiction, private international law, public limited company, shareholder, shareholding








C_2018161EN.01000902.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda
(Case C-560/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(2) - Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State - Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder - Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration))
(2018/C 161/10)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.ON Czech Holding AG

Defendants: Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

Intervener: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of the consideration that the principal shareholder of a company is required to pay to the minority shareholders of that company in the event of the compulsory transfer of their shares to that principal shareholder comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that company is established.


(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-230/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark RSTUDIO — Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, traineeship








C_2018142EN.01005002.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/50





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
(Case T-230/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark RSTUDIO - Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2018/C 142/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC and G. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 493/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Embarcadero Technologies and Rstudio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rstudio, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Case T-179/18: Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, Greece, aid system, bank deposit, company in difficulties, contractual liability, equal treatment, indemnification, interest, ownership








C_2018166EN.01003702.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/37





Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others
(Case T-179/18)
(2018/C 166/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 5 others (represented by: A. Markides, lawyer, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;




or in the alternative:






—


declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;




and in any event:






—


order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.
Case C-127/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (Appeal — State aid — Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam — Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Sale of assets en bloc — Concept of ‘sale’ — Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc — Open and transparent procedure — Private investor test — Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc — Compensatory measures)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, rail transport, reimbursement of aid, sale








C_2018161EN.01000601.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation
(Case C-127/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam - Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Sale of assets en bloc - Concept of ‘sale’ - Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc - Open and transparent procedure - Private investor test - Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc - Compensatory measures))
(2018/C 161/05)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders SNCF Mobilités to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Mory SA and Mory Team.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 7 March 2018 on a Council recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank (CON/2018/14)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU), vice-president of an institution








C_2018093EN.01000201.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/2





OPINION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 7 March 2018
on a Council recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank
(CON/2018/14)
(2018/C 93/02)

Introduction and legal basis

On 23 February 2018 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on a Council Recommendation of 20 February 2018 (1) on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank.
The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations









1.


The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO be appointed as the Vice-President of the ECB for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2018.












2.


The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty.












3.


The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO as the Vice-President of the ECB.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 7 March 2018.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI




(1)  OJ C 67, 22.2.2018, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8710 — JD/Sonae MC/Balaiko/JDSH/Sport Zone) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, foodstuff, goods and services, investment company, merger control, retail trade, sports equipment, sports facilities, wholesale trade








C_2018087EN.01000101.xml










7.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8710 — JD/Sonae MC/Balaiko/JDSH/Sport Zone)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 87/01)
On 17 January 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 32018M8710. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-494/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, public service employee, temporary employment, work contract








C_2018161EN.01000901.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-494/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))
(2018/C 161/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Trapani

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Giuseppa Santoro

Defendants: Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, on the one hand, does not punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public sector employer through the payment of compensation to the worker concerned for the lack of conversion of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship of indefinite duration, but, on the other hand, provides for the grant of compensation of between 2,5 and 12 times the last monthly salary of that worker together with the possibility for him to obtain full compensation for the harm by demonstrating, by way of presumption, the loss of opportunities to find employment or that, if a recruitment competition had been duly organised, he would have been successful, provided that such legislation is accompanied by an effective and dissuasive penalty mechanism, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.