do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-5/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption — Article 135(1)(d) — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Concept — Scope — Dental payment plan by direct debit)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, banking, dental medicine, electronic money, payment, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2018328EN.01000902.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/9






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited
(Case C-5/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Concept - Scope - Dental payment plan by direct debit))
(2018/C 328/10)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: DPAS Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists for the taxable person in requesting from the relevant financial institutions, first, that a sum of money be transferred from a patient’s bank account to that of the taxable person pursuant to a direct debit mandate and, second, that that sum, after deduction of the remuneration due to that taxable person, be transferred from the latter’s bank account to the respective bank accounts of that patient’s dentist and insurer.


(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case C-107/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/47/EC — Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements — Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker — Occurrence of the enforcement event — Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency — Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial legislation, guarantee, liquidation








C_2018328EN.01001301.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/13






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation
(Case C-107/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements - Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker - Occurrence of the enforcement event - Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency - Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral))
(2018/C 328/14)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant:‘Aviabaltika’ UAB

Respondent:‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt rules which enable a taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the relevant financial obligations, from that collateral, where the enforcement event occurs after insolvency proceedings have been commenced against that taker.










2.


Article 4(1) and (5) of Directive 2002/47, as amended by Directive 2009/44, must be interpreted as not requiring the taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the financial obligations covered by that arrangement, primarily from that collateral.






(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-457/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Zotkov v Commission
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, family relationship








C_2018341EN.01002301.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/23






Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Zotkov v Commission
(Case T-457/18)
(2018/C 341/34)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Rosen D. Zotkov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. Stankov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—



annul Commission Decision No Ares (2018)2294884 of 30 April 2018 and review it in connection with the applicant’s claim concerning a financial allowance for his parents, after correction of the financial calculation in accordance with the pleas in law and arguments put forward by the applicant





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The first plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 in connection with the practical application of the decision in so far as it accounts for residential property, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect






—


deficiencies in the interpretation from the point of view of the specific nature (financial and economic) of the matter regulated by the Commission decision,










—


interpretation based on objectively impossible assumptions,










—


internal discrepancies between separate parts of the Commission decision, examined together, and not independently, arising from the defendant’s interpretation,










—


subjective and contentious interpretation of words, concepts and phrasing in the text of the Commission decision, which are, essentially, ambiguous from a linguistic point of view and/or from the point of view of their generally accepted meaning,










—


preference given to theoretical indicators for individual financial elements, for which practical indicators exist.














2.


The second plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 concerning the practical application of the decision in so far as it applies a relative weighting (coefficient) to a country, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect






—


the interpretation and application of the relative weighting (coefficient) for a country to a specific element of the financial calculation contrary to its very essence and the logic of that coefficient from the point of view of financial and economic theory and practice.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8984 — Hg/Vista/Allocate) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health care, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, technology








C_2018261EN.01001601.xml










25.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8984 — Hg/Vista/Allocate)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 261/04)

1.   
On 17 July 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:






—


HgCapital LLP (‘HG’, UK),










—


Vista Equity Partners (‘Vista’, USA), and










—


Allocate Software (‘Allocate’, UK) controlled by Vista.




Hg and Vista acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Allocate. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Hg is a private equity firm which invests mainly in Europe into technology and technology enabled service businesses. A number of Hg’s portfolio companies provide IT Services including the provision of business software,










—


Vista is a U.S. based private equity firm that is focused on investments in software, data and technology-enabled businesses led by world-class management teams with long-term perspective,










—


Allocate is a provider of workforce and risk management software primarily to the healthcare industry.






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.8984 — Hg/Vista/Allocate
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, 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 C-679/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Social assistance — Sickness benefits — Services provided to people with disabilities — Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, care of people with disabilities, disabled person, financial aid, freedom of movement, health insurance, higher education, municipality, social assistance, student mobility








C_2018328EN.01000901.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A
(Case C-679/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Social assistance - Sickness benefits - Services provided to people with disabilities - Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State))
(2018/C 328/09)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A

Intervener: Espoon kaupungin sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunnan yksilöasioiden jaosto

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, which entails, inter alia, covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education, does not fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefit’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore outside the scope of Regulation No 883/2004.










2.


Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude the home municipality of a resident of a Member State who is severely disabled from refusing to grant that person a benefit, such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that he is staying in another Member State in order to pursue his higher education studies there.






(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case C-574/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Remission of import duties — Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 — Special situation — Supervision and monitoring obligations — Corruption alleged of the customs authorities — Inauthentic movement certificate — Mutual trust)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, corruption, customs drawback, customs profession, customs union, movement certificate, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, textile product








C_2018328EN.01002101.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/21






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA
(Case C-574/17) (1)

((Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Remission of import duties - Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 - Special situation - Supervision and monitoring obligations - Corruption alleged of the customs authorities - Inauthentic movement certificate - Mutual trust))
(2018/C 328/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Combaro SA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, Combaro v Commission (T-752/14, EU:T:2017:529);










2.


Dismisses the action brought by Combaro SA;










3.


Orders Combaro SA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Case T-465/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, heating, household electrical appliance, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, thermal equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018341EN.01002401.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/24






Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
(Case T-465/18)
(2018/C 341/35)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the word mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ — Application for registration No 16 180 879

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1358/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


hold this action to be admissible;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 879 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case C-216/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, access to the courts, enforcement of ruling, independence of the judiciary, right to justice








C_2018328EN.01002201.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/22






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM
(Case C-216/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal))
(2018/C 328/28)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

LM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is to be surrendered, has material, such as that set out in a reasoned proposal of the European Commission adopted pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU, indicating that there is a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies so far as concerns the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, that authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether, having regard to his personal situation, as well as to the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that form the basis of the European arrest warrant, and in the light of the information provided by the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will run such a risk if he is surrendered to that State.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Case C-488/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, non-profit organisation, provision of services, sports body, tax exemption








C_2018392EN.01000601.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.
(Case C-488/18)
(2018/C 392/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen

Respondent: Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) under which Member States are to exempt ‘the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education’, have direct effect, with the result that, in the absence of transposition, that provision may be relied on directly by non-profit-making organisations?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Is ‘non-profit-making organisation’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax






—


a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously, or










—


are the Member States authorised to make the existence of such an organisation subject to conditions such as Paragraph 52, in conjunction with Paragraph 55, of the Abgabenordnung (German General Tax Code) (or Paragraph 51 et seq. of the General Tax Code in their entirety)?














3.


If it is a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously: Must a non-profit-making organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have rules that apply in the event that the organisation is dissolved, under which it has to transfer its existing assets to another non-profit-making organisation in order to promote sport and physical education?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.