do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-519/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 August 2018 — TB v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, family migration, refugee, residence permit








C_2018436EN.01001801.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 August 2018 — TB v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Case C-519/18)
(2018/C 436/23)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TB

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) on the right to family reunification be interpreted as meaning that, if a Member State, under that article, authorises the entry of a family member other than those referred to in Article 4, only the requirement under Article 10(2) (that the family member must be ‘dependent on the refugee’) can be applied to that family member?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the status of ‘dependent’ person (‘dependency’) as referred to in Article 4(2)(a) of the Directive imply a factual situation in which the various aspects of dependency must all be present, or is it sufficient that any of those aspects is present, depending on the specific circumstances of each case, for there to be dependency? In that context, is it consistent with the requirement established in Article 10(2) (that the family member must be ‘dependent on the refugee’) that a national provision, excluding any individual assessment, takes account of a single factual element, an indicator of dependency (‘[being] objectively unable to provide for [his or her] own needs on account of [his or her] state of health’), as a factor meaning that the requirement in question is satisfied?










3.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative and that, therefore, a Member State can apply other requirements in addition to that set out in Article 10(2) (that the family member must be ‘dependent on the refugee’), does this mean that the Member State is entitled, if it sees fit, to establish any requirement, including those laid down in Article 4(2) and (3) in relation to other family members, or can the Member State only apply the requirement contained in Article 4(3) of the Directive? In that case, what factual situation is entailed by the requirement ‘objectively unable to provide for their own needs on account of their state of health’ in Article 4(3) of the Directive? Must it be interpreted as meaning that such family members are unable [to provide] for ‘their own needs’ or that ‘they are unable’ to look after ‘themselves’, or, if applicable, in some other way?






(1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
Case C-123/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association — Decision No 2/76 — Article 7 — Standstill clause — Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker — Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Türkiye, association agreement, family migration, foreign national, migrant worker, migration control, residence permit








C_2018352EN.01000901.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart
(Case C-123/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association - Decision No 2/76 - Article 7 - Standstill clause - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State))
(2018/C 352/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nefiye Yön

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

Interveners: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 of 20 December 1976 adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, taken during the period from 20 December 1976 to 30 November 1980, which makes the grant, for the purposes of family reunification, of a residence permit to third-country nationals who are family members of a Turkish worker residing lawfully in the Member State concerned, subject to such nationals obtaining, before entering national territory, a visa for the purpose of that reunification, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a measure may nevertheless be justified on the grounds of the effective control of immigration and the management of migratory flows, but may be accepted only provided that the detailed rules relating to its implementation do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued, which it is for the national court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case C-16/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Economic Interest Grouping, Germany, Portugal, VAT rate, branch, shareholding, tax relief








C_2018352EN.01000402.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-16/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Origin and scope of the right to deduct))
(2018/C 352/05)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principle of neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from regarding a company which has its headquarters in another Member State and the branch which it has in the first of those States as constituting two separate taxable entities on the ground that each of those entities has a tax identification number, and, for that reason, from refusing that branch the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) on the debit notes issued by an economic interest group of which that company, and not its branch, is a member.


(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case C-120/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Support for rural development — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Articles 10 to 12 — Early retirement support — National legislation providing for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support — Legislation approved by the European Commission — Subsequent change of position — Protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, aid to agriculture, early retirement, farmer, inheritance, rural development








C_2018352EN.01000801.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets
(Case C-120/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Support for rural development - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Articles 10 to 12 - Early retirement support - National legislation providing for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support - Legislation approved by the European Commission - Subsequent change of position - Protection of legitimate expectations))
(2018/C 352/10)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Defendant: Ministru kabinets

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 10 to 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when implementing those articles, from adopting measures making it possible to transfer by inheritance support for early retirement such as that at issue in the main proceedings.










2.


The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings –– which provided for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support and was approved by the European Commission as compatible with Regulation No 1257/1999 –– gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the heirs of farmers who received that support, and that a conclusion such as that mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2011, to the effect that such support may not be passed on by inheritance, did not bring that legitimate expectation to an end.






(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Case C-518/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, claim, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2018392EN.01000801.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC
(Case C-518/18)
(2018/C 392/12)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RD

Defendant: SC

Question referred

Must Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that a claim which has been decided on after taking evidence may be regarded as uncontested if neither the defendant, who acknowledged the debt before the commencement of the action, nor the guardian took part in the court proceedings, and they did not raise any objections in the course of the proceedings?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9022 — Watling Street Capital Partners/Sisaho International) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: broker, consultancy, economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2018300EN.01000101.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9022 — Watling Street Capital Partners/Sisaho International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 300/01)
On 7 August 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 French 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 32018M9022. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Joined Cases C-61/17, C-62/17 and C-72/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17) v Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — First subparagraph of Article 2(4) — Definition of ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ — Procedures for consultation of workers — Burden of proof)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, proof, shareholding, social policy, worker consultation








C_2018352EN.01000602.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17) v Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
(Joined Cases C-61/17, C-62/17 and C-72/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC - First subparagraph of Article 2(4) - Definition of ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ - Procedures for consultation of workers - Burden of proof))
(2018/C 352/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17)

Respondent: Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ covers all undertakings linked to that employer by shareholdings in the latter or by other links in law which allow it to exercise decisive influence in the employer’s decision-making bodies and compel it to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies.


(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9010 — JAB/Pret A Manger) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage, processed foodstuff, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2018277EN.01002101.xml










7.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9010 — JAB/Pret A Manger)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 277/08)

1.   
On 31 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:






—


JAB Holdings BV, controlled by JAB Holding Company SARL (‘JAB’, Luxembourg),










—


PAM Group Limited (‘Pret’, UK), controlled by funds managed by Bridgepoint Advisers Limited.




JAB acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Pret.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for JAB: JAB holds interests in tea brands, coffee brands (including Jacobs, Douwe Egberts and Tassimo) and bakery, coffee, non-alcoholic beverages and doughnut businesses. JAB has controlling stakes in the following companies active in the retail food and drink sector in the EEA: Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Espresso House, Baresso, Balzac Coffee, Coffee Company and 12oz Coffee Joint. JAB is also active in the wholesale supply of coffee and other hot drinks throughout the EEA,
—   for Pret: Pret is a food and drink retailer offering a wide selection of food and drinks including sandwiches, hot food, salads, soups, baked goods, snacks, fresh fruit, juices and organic coffee. Pret has outlets in the UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands and outside the EEA.


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.



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.9010 — JAB/Pret A Manger
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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8879 — JERA Trading/LNG Optimisation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coal industry, economic concentration, gas industry, management techniques, merger control








C_2018277EN.01002001.xml










7.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8879 — JERA Trading/LNG Optimisation)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 277/07)

1.   
On 31 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:






—


JERA Trading Pte Ltd (‘JERA Trading’, Singapore), jointly controlled by Jera Co. Inc. (‘JERA’, JAPAN), and EDF Trading Limited (‘EDFT’, United Kingdom),










—


LNG Optimisation (United Kingdom), belonging to EDFT, in turn a wholly-owned subsidiary of Electricité de France SA (‘EDF’, France).




JERA Trading acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the LNG trading and optimisation business of EDFT (‘LNG Optimisation’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


JERA Trading is active in coal and freight trading and optimisation, which involves both physical coal and financial products. It is jointly controlled by JERA, that is active in the purchasing of LNG and other commodities for its parent companies Tepco Fuel & Power, Inc. and Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc., both Japanese utility companies, and EDFT, a company that trades LNG and other commodities in the wholesale market and optimises assets for its parent EDF,










—


LNG Optimisation is active in LNG trading and optimisation.






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.8879 — JERA Trading/LNG Optimisation
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.