do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-552/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for travel agents — Supply of a holiday residence rented from other taxable persons — Additional services — Ancillary or principal services — Reduced rate of tax — Accommodation supplied by a travel agent in his own name)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, hotel industry, provision of services, tax relief, travel agency








C_2019065EN.01001601.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/16






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften
(Case C-552/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for travel agents - Supply of a holiday residence rented from other taxable persons - Additional services - Ancillary or principal services - Reduced rate of tax - Accommodation supplied by a travel agent in his own name))
(2019/C 65/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 306 to 310 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 mere supply by a travel agent of holiday accommodation rented from other taxable persons or such a supply of a holiday residence combined with the supply of additional ancillary services, regardless of the importance of those ancillary services, each amount to a single service covered by the special scheme for travel agents.










2.


Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of travel agent services consisting of the supply of holiday accommodation, covered by Article 307 of that directive, cannot be subject to a reduced tax rate or one of the reduced rates set out in Article 98(2).






(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9216 — Sumitomo Corporation/Toyota Motor Corporation/Mobilots Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, financial services, general mechanical engineering, handling, investment company, machinery, merger control, motor vehicle industry, shipbuilding








C_2019006EN.01000102.xml










9.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9216 — Sumitomo Corporation/Toyota Motor Corporation/Mobilots Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 6/02)
On 19 December 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 32018M9216. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9215 — Sumitomo Corporation/Toyota Motor Corporation/Kinto Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, energy industry, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry, motor vehicle industry, rental business








C_2019006EN.01000201.xml










9.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9215 — Sumitomo Corporation/Toyota Motor Corporation/Kinto Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 6/03)
On 19 December 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 32018M9215. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice extending the duration of the safeguard investigation concerning imports of certain steel products
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, third country








C_2018457EN.01001401.xml










19.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/14






Notice extending the duration of the safeguard investigation concerning imports of certain steel products
(2018/C 457/07)
The Commission initiated a safeguards investigation on certain steel products on 26 March 2018 (1).
Under Article 6.3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 on common rules for imports (2) and Article 4.3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 (3), such investigation shall be concluded no later than 9 months from the initiation of the investigation. This time limit may however be extended by a maximum period of 2 months in exceptional circumstances. If this is the case, the Commission shall publish a notice setting forth the duration of the extension and a summary of the reasons thereof.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby informs that the investigation will be extended by a maximum period of 2 months for the following reasons.
The size of the investigation, in terms of product scope (28 product categories) as well as number of interested parties (over 800 parties registered), is unprecedented. The investigation therefore entails a heavy administrative burden on the Commission in order to deal with a significant number of representations made by the parties, as well as a complex legal and economic analysis of recent data. There has been a great amount of interested parties which have actively participated in the investigation by providing questionnaire replies, submitting written comments and/or participating in hearings. The collection and analysis of such vast amounts of information received has required a significant amount of time and resources. Moreoever, the current provisional safeguard measures adopted against certain steel products ensures the necessary temporary protection of the Union industry, so that an extension of the current investigation would not have negative effects.
It is, therefore, considered that the above situation qualifies as exceptional circumstances under which the Commission is allowed to extend the duration of the investigation beyond 9 months.
As a result, should definitive measures be adopted, the Commission would publish an Implementing Regulation by 1 February 2019 at the latest.


(1)  OJ C 111, 26.3.2018, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 16.

(3)  OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33.
Case C-530/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds and economic resources — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Decision by an authority of a third State — Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2019065EN.01001501.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/15






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union
(Case C-530/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection))
(2019/C 65/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2017, Azarov v Council (T-215/15, EU:T:2017:479);










2.


Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.






(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Case C-572/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Imran Syed (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4(1) — Distribution right — Infringement — Goods bearing a copyrighted motif intended for sale — Storage for commercial purposes — Storage facility separate from place of sale)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, literary and artistic property, sale, storage








C_2019065EN.01001602.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/16






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Imran Syed
(Case C-572/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Infringement - Goods bearing a copyrighted motif intended for sale - Storage for commercial purposes - Storage facility separate from place of sale))
(2019/C 65/20)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Party in the main proceedings

Imran Syed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the storage by a retailer of goods bearing a motif protected by copyright on the territory of the Member State where the goods are stored may constitute an infringement of the exclusive distribution right, as defined by that provision, when that retailer offers for sale, without the authorisation of the copyright holder, goods identical to those which he is storing, provided that the stored goods are actually intended for sale on the territory of the Member State in which that motif is protected. The distance between the place of storage and the place of sale cannot, on its own, be a decisive element in determining whether the stored goods are intended for sale on the territory of that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Latium, Lombardy, Sardinia, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2018457EN.01001301.xml










19.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/13






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 457/06)






Member State


Italy




Routes concerned


Alghero-Rome Fiumicino and vice versa
Alghero-Milan Linate and vice versa
Cagliari-Rome Fiumicino and vice versa
Cagliari-Milan Linate and vice versa
Olbia-Rome Fiumicino and vice versa
Olbia-Milan Linate and vice versa




New date of entry into force of the public service obligations


17 April 2019




Address where the text and any information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained



Reference document


OJ C 314/10 of 6 September 2018

For further information, please contact:





Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport




Directorate-General for Airports and Air Transport




Tel. +39 0641583681/3683




Email: segreteria_dgata@pec.mit.gov.it




Website: http://www.mit.gov.it.









Autonomous Region of Sardinia




Department of Transport




Directorate-General for Transport




Service for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity




Tel. +39 0706067331




Fax +39 0706067309




Website: http://www.regione.sardegna.it











Email


:


trasporti@pec.regione.sardegna.it
trasporti@regione.sardegna.it
trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it
Case C-801/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 December 2018 — EU v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Brazil, Luxembourg, equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, international convention, legal domicile, nationality, social security legislation








C_2019082EN.01001401.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 December 2018 — EU v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
(Case C-801/18)
(2019/C 82/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: EU

Respondent: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Questions referred







1.


Are the competent social security authorities of one Member State (in this case the Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Children’s Future Fund), Luxembourg) required, pursuant to their Community obligations under Article 45 TFEU, Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) and Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (2) in particular Article 4 thereof, to pay family benefits to a national of a second Member State when, under identical conditions for the grant of those benefits, those competent authorities recognise the entitlement of their own nationals and residents to family benefits, pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between the first Member State (Luxembourg) and the third country (Brazil)?










2.


In the affirmative, and in the event that the approach taken in the judgment in Gottardo (3) is extended to the context of family benefits, can the competent social security authority, more particularly the competent authority for family benefits — in this case, the Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Children’s Future Fund), the national agency of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg for family benefits — rely on objective grounds based on considerations relating to the extremely heavy financial and administrative burdens faced by the authority in question to justify a difference in treatment between nationals of countries that are contracting parties (to the bilateral convention concerned) and other nationals of European Union Member States?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

(2)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(3)  Judgment of 15 January 2002, Gottardo (C-55/00, EU:C:2002:16).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018457EN.01000801.xml










19.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 December 2018
(2018/C 457/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1377 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,86 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4675 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89715 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2760 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1281 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8835 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,753 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2848 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6467 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0782 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5810 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5249 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8976 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6556 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5590 




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,35 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3106 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8455 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4048 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 472,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7579 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,390 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,1678 




THB


Thai baht


37,277 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4366 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8293 




INR


Indian rupee


80,2530 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-667/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(4) — Concept of beneficiary — Article 80 — Prohibition on making a deduction or withholding sums paid — Other specific charge or charge with equivalent effect — Concept — Study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund — Treatment as income from employment — Retention on account of income tax increased by additional regional and municipal taxes)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Social Fund, education grant, income, personal income tax, remuneration of work, tax relief








C_2019065EN.01001701.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/17






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro
(Case C-667/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(4) - Concept of beneficiary - Article 80 - Prohibition on making a deduction or withholding sums paid - Other specific charge or charge with equivalent effect - Concept - Study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund - Treatment as income from employment - Retention on account of income tax increased by additional regional and municipal taxes))
(2019/C 65/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Francesca Cadeddu

Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies personal income tax to the amounts awarded to natural persons in the form of study grants by the public body responsible for implementing the project selected by the managing authority for the operational programme at issue, for the purposes of Article 2(3) of that regulation, and financed through the European structural funds.


(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.