do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-183/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damage, damages, indemnification, judicial proceedings, working conditions








C_2018166EN.01003801.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/38





Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VL and Others/Parliament
(Case T-183/18)
(2018/C 166/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: VL, VM, VN and VO (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The Applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the Defendant to produce, in accordance with Article 89 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, the recording of the plenary session in question;










—


declare the present application for damages admissible and well-founded and, therefore,






i.


order the Defendant to compensate VL for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence;










ii.


order the Defendant to compensate VM, VN and VO for the material and non-material damage resulting from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and negligence;














—


hear the case in camera in accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and with Article 109 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, in case the General Court should consider that the organisation of a hearing is necessary in the case at hand; and










—


order the Defendant to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the Applicants argue that:






—


the Defendant violated Articles 31 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more generally, the general duty of care and diligence insofar as it failed to ensure that VL benefited from fair and just working conditions and from appropriate medical care and assistance;










—


due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VL suffered material damage consisting of a significant reduction of his (current and future) professional income as well as non-material damage resulting from the irreversible and severe deterioration of his physical and mental condition, the loss of his political and academic careers and the very significant deterioration of his social and personal life;










—


due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM suffered material damage consisting in the loss of income; and that










—


due to the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, VM, VN and VO suffered material damage consisting in the payment of various administrative and legal fees and monthly nursing expenses and non-material damage.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8818 — Brookfield/Westinghouse) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, industrial infrastructure, investment company, merger control, nuclear power station, nuclear technology, real estate business, renewable energy








C_2018093EN.01000101.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8818 — Brookfield/Westinghouse)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 93/01)
On 5 March 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 32018M8818. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 12 March 2018 concerning the draft decision relating to Case AT.40136 — Capacitors — Rapporteur: Italy
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, exchange of information, price agreement, sanction (EU), trade information, vertical agreement








C_2018446EN.01000401.xml










11.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 446/4






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 12 March 2018 concerning the draft decision relating to Case AT.40136 — Capacitors
Rapporteur: Italy
(2018/C 446/04)

1.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA.



2.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.



3.   
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the following undertakings:






—


Elna Co., Ltd (Elna),










—


Hitachi Chemical Electronics Co., Ltd and Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd (Hitachi AIC),










—


Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd, Holy Stone Holdings Co., Ltd and Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd (Holy Stone),










—


Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd (Matsuo),










—


Tokin Corporation and NEC Corporation (NEC Tokin),










—


Nichicon Corporation (Nichicon),










—


Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation (Nippon Chemi-Con),










—


Rubycon Corporation and Rubycon Holdings Co., Ltd (Rubycon),










—


Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd and Panasonic Corporation,




have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA.


4.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA.



5.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU/contracting parties to the EEA agreement.



6.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement from 26 June 1998 to 23 April 2012 and for each respective legal person involved as described in the draft decision.



7.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees.



8.   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-188/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU), service concession








C_2018152EN.01002201.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/22





Action brought on 12 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-188/18)
(2018/C 152/27)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, G. von Rintelen, M. Žebre)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) by 18 April 2016 or, in any event, by not having communicated those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 51 of that directive;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty payment, under Article 260(3) TFEU, in the sum of EUR 8 992,32 per day, as from the day of delivery of the Court’s judgment in the present case;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 51 of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, the Republic of Slovenia should have adopted and communicated the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016. Since the Republic of Slovenia did not notify the Commission, before the expiry of that deadline, that it has transposed all the provisions of that directive, the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court.
By its action, the Commission asks the Court to order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty of EUR 8 992,32 per day. In calculating that amount, the Commission took into consideration the seriousness and the duration of the infringement of EU law, as well as the deterrent effect in relation to the ability of the Member State concerned, namely the Republic of Slovenia, to pay.
The deadline for the transposition of the Directive expired on 18 April 2016.
Case T-188/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, Greece, aid system, bank deposit, company in difficulties, contractual liability, equal treatment, indemnification, interest, ownership








C_2018166EN.01004001.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/40





Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others
(Case T-188/18)
(2018/C 166/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Adonis Papaconstantinou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 722 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, 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-184/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Angola, Portugal, capital gains tax, national, personal income tax, real property, residence, tax law, transfer of property








C_2018182EN.01001301.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira
(Case C-184/18)
(2018/C 182/15)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Defendants: Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

Question referred

Must the combined provisions of Articles 12, 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 18, 63, 64 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 43(2) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares, approved by Decree-Law No 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law No 109- B/2001 of 27 December 2001) which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer of immovable property situated in a Member State (Portugal) where that transfer is made by a national of that Member State residing in a third country (Angola) to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated?’
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8841 — Equistone Partners Europe/FRAM/Karavel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, travel agency








C_2018093EN.01000601.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8841 — Equistone Partners Europe/FRAM/Karavel)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 93/05)






1.


On 2 March 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Equistone Partners Europe SAS (France), owned by Equistone LLP (United Kingdom),










—


the FRAM group (France),










—


the Karavel-Promovacances group (‘Karavel’, France).




Equistone Partners Europe acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of FRAM and Karavel.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Equistone Partners Europe: management of professional private equity funds,
—   Karavel and FRAM: leisure travel services chiefly for a French clientele.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8841 — Equistone Partners Europe/FRAM/Karavel
Observations can be sent to the Commission by e-mail, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-180/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, right to justice, staff regulations (EU), wage determination








C_2018161EN.01006901.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/69





Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS
(Case T-180/18)
(2018/C 161/86)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VJ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the calculation sheet forwarded to him by email of 22 June 2017 from the EEAS and, so far as necessary, the salary slip through which the payment of the education allowance for his children was/will be granted;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, putting forward an objection of illegality, in so far as the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 on which it is based and the EEAS’s Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex X thereto.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea.






—


First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights.










—


Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.










—


Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education.










—


Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










—


Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018093EN.01000301.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 March 2018
(2018/C 93/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2291 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4494 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88893 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1648 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1695 




ISK


Iceland króna


122,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5948 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,454 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2018 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6570 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6939 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5772 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5848 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6370 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6931 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6204 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,51 




ZAR


South African rand


14,6257 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7895 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4355 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 976,78 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8105 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,102 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,1112 




THB


Thai baht


38,538 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0100 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8810 




INR


Indian rupee


80,1315 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on supplementary rules in relation to the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, as part of the Internal Security Fund for the period 2014 to 2020
Date: 2018-03-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU visa policy, Norway, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, financial aid, fund (EU), migration control








L_2018068EN.01000101.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 68/1







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on supplementary rules in relation to the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, as part of the Internal Security Fund for the period 2014 to 2020

The Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway (1) entered into force on 1 August 2017, the procedure provided for in Article 19.3 of the Agreement having been completed on 20 July 2017.


(1)  Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on supplementary rules in relation to the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, as part of the Internal Security Fund for the period 2014 to 2020 (OJ L 75, 21.3.2017, p. 3).