do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Special Report No 16/2018 — ‘Ex post review of EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete’
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU law, interinstitutional agreement, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), regulatory policy








C_2018205EN.01000501.xml










14.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/5





Special Report No 16/2018
‘Ex post review of EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete’
(2018/C 205/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 16/2018 ‘Ex post review of EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-16/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 231/2013)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, consumer information, financial legislation, financial market, investment company, market supervision








C_2018414EN.01001101.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/11






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 June 2018
in Case E-16/17
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 231/2013)

(2018/C 414/13)
In Case E-16/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-14/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 447/2013)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, exchange of information, financial control, financial legislation, financial market, freedom to provide services, investment company, market supervision








C_2018414EN.01000901.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/9






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 June 2018
in Case E-14/17
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 447/2013)

(2018/C 414/11)
In Case E-14/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8943 — Intermediate Capital Group/Minimax Viking) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fire protection, investment company, merger control








C_2018205EN.01003301.xml










14.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/33





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8943 — Intermediate Capital Group/Minimax Viking)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 205/08)

1.   
On 6 June 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:






—


Intermediate Capital Group plc (United Kingdom),










—


MV Holding GmbH, which holds 100 % of the issued share capital of Minimax Viking Group (Germany)




Intermediate Capital Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of MV Holding GmbH.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Intermediate Capital Group: UK-based investment firm active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and minority equity and managing assets, with investment porfolios in Europe, Asia Pacific and the US,
—   for Minimax Viking Group: manufacture, supply, and integration of fire suppression and related detection and control systems; manufacture and supply of portable fire exinguishers; and supply and installation of equipment for fire trucks.


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 the 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.8943 — Intermediate Capital Group/Minimax Viking
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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 C-440/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2011/96/EU — Article 1(2) — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse — Presumption)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, holding company, nationality of legal persons, parent company, subsidiary, tax law, tax relief, tax system








C_2018328EN.01002401.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/24






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern
(Case C-440/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 1(2) - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse - Presumption))
(2018/C 328/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GS

Defendant: Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2013/13/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a withholding tax on dividends awarded by a resident subsidiary to its non-resident parent company, but which excludes the right of the latter to obtain reimbursement of or exemption from such withholding tax where, first, the shares in that parent company are held by persons who would not be entitled to such a reimbursement or such an exemption if they had received the dividends from such a subsidiary directly and that parent company has not earned its gross income for the trading year concerned from its own economic activity and, second, one of the two conditions laid down by that legislation is satisfied, namely either there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of that parent company, or that company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, without taking account of the organisational, economic or other significant features of the undertakings which are connected with the parent company in question.


(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Update of Annex II and of Tables 1 and 2 of Annex IIIb with respect to applicable euro values in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air quality, charges for use of infrastructure, euro, large vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, noise pollution








C_2018205EN.01000101.xml










14.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/1





Update of Annex II and of Tables 1 and 2 of Annex IIIb with respect to applicable euro values in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
(2018/C 205/01)
Annex II to Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1), is updated as follows:
‘
ANNEX II
MAXIMUM AMOUNTS IN EURO OF USER CHARGES, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 7(7)

Annual








 


maximum three axles


minimum four axles




EURO 0


1 428 


2 394 




EURO I


1 242 


2 073 




EURO II


1 081 


1 803 




EURO III


940


1 567 




EURO IV and less polluting


855


1 425 





Monthly and weekly

Maximum monthly and weekly rates are in proportion to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure.

Daily

The daily charge is equal for all vehicle categories and amounts to EUR 12.
’.
Annex IIIb to Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), is updated as follows:
‘
ANNEX IIIb
MAXIMUM WEIGHTED AVERAGE EXTERNAL-COST CHARGE
This Annex sets out the parameters to be used to calculate the maximum weighted average external-cost charge.
1.   Maximum cost of traffic-based air pollution


Table 1


Maximum chargeable air pollution cost








cent/vehicle.kilometre


Suburban roads
(including motorways)


Interurban roads
(including motorways)




EURO 0


17,2 


12,9 




EURO I


11,8 


8,6 




EURO II


9,7 


7,6 




EURO III


7,6 


6,5 




EURO IV


4,3 


3,3 




EURO V
after 31 December 2013


0


0




3,3 


2,2 




EURO VI
after 31 December 2017


0


0




2,2 


1,1 




Less polluting than EURO VI


0


0




The values of Table 1 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by the gradient of roads, altitude and/or temperature inversions.
2.   Maximum cost of traffic-based noise pollution


Table 2


Maximum chargeable noise cost








cent/vehicle.kilometre


Day


Night




Suburban roads
(including motorways)


1,18 


2,15 




Interurban roads
(including motorways)


0,22 


0,33 




The values in Table 2 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by the gradient of roads, temperature inversions and/or amphitheatre effect of valleys.
’.


(1)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

(2)  OJ L 269, 14.10.2011, p. 1.
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-15/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 694/2014)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, financial control, financial legislation, financial market, freedom to provide services, investment company, market supervision, technical standard








C_2018414EN.01001001.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/10






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 June 2018
in Case E-15/17
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 694/2014)

(2018/C 414/12)
In Case E-15/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination and appointment of Hearing Officers
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: appointment of members, competition, control of restrictive practices, dismissal








C_2018205EN.01000601.xml










14.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/6





Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination and appointment of Hearing Officers
(2018/C 205/04)
As of 1 April 2018, the EFTA Surveillance Authority appointed Mr Craig Simpson, official of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as a Hearing Officer for the purposes of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 442/12/COL of 29 November 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (1).
Ms Charlotte Fornø terminated her functions as Hearing Officer, as set out in EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 442/12/COL, as of 31 March 2018. Mr Casper Ebrecht remains in post as Hearing Officer at the EFTA Surveillance Authority.


(1)  OJ L 190, 11.7.2013, p. 93, and EEA Supplement No 40, 11.7.2013, p. 3.
Case C-394/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, demerger, enforcement of ruling, protection of shareholders, shareholder








C_2018301EN.01001502.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others
(Case C-394/18)
(2018/C 301/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: I.G.I. Srl

Respondents: Maria Grazia Cicenia, Mario Di Pierro, Salvatore de Vito, Antonio Raffaele

Questions referred







1.


Can the creditors of the company being divided, whose credit interests antedate the division, who have not taken advantage of the remedy of lodging an objection under Article 2503 of the Civil Code (and therefore of the protection tool introduced in implementation of Article 12 of [Directive 82/891/EEC]), (1) use an action to set aside under Article 2901 of the Civil Code after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and, therefore, to take precedence in enforcement over the creditors of the recipient company or companies and to be placed in a preferential position before the shareholders of those companies?










2.


Does the notion of nullity, provided for by Article 19 of the directive, refer only to actions affecting the validity of the instrument of division or also to actions which, despite not affecting its validity, result in its relative lack of effect or unenforceability?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8940 — Blackstone/Cirsa) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gaming, investment company, merger control








C_2018220EN.01000101.xml










25.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8940 — Blackstone/Cirsa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 220/01)
On 14 June 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 32018M8940. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-11/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/61/EU)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, exchange of information, financial control, financial legislation, financial market, freedom to provide services, investment company, market supervision








C_2018414EN.01000601.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/6






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 June 2018
in Case E-11/17
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/61/EU)

(2018/C 414/08)
In Case E-11/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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 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, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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 to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.