do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-521/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 July 2019 — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, basis of tax assessment, misuse of a right, restriction on competition, tax evasion, tax inspection








C_2019363EN.01000601.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 8 July 2019 — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia
(Case C-521/19)
(2019/C 363/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CB

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

Questions referred

Must Articles 73 and 78 of the VAT Directive, (1) in the light of the principles of neutrality, prohibition of tax evasion and abuse of rights, and prohibition of the illegal distortion of competition, be interpreted as precluding national legislation and the case-law interpreting it, pursuant to which, where the tax authorities discover concealed transactions subject to value added tax for which no invoice was issued, the price agreed by the parties for those transactions must be regarded as already including value added tax?
Is it therefore possible, in cases of fraud in which the transaction was concealed from the tax authorities, to consider, as may be deduced from the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28 July 2016 (Case C-332/15, Astone (2)), of 5 October 2016 (Case C-576/15, Marinova (3)) and of 7 March 2018 (C-159/17, Dobre (4)), that the amounts paid and received do not include value added tax in order to conduct the proper assessment and impose the appropriate penalty?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 28 July 2016, Astone (C-332/15, EU:C:2016:614).

(3)  Judgment of 5 October 2016, Marinova (C-576/15, EU:C:2016:740).

(4)  Judgment of 7 March 2018, Dobre (C-159/17, EU:C:2018:161).
Case C-515/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 8 July 2019 — Eutelsat SA v Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures Ltd
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Eutelsat, regulation of telecommunications, satellite, satellite communications, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2019295EN.01001101.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 8 July 2019 — Eutelsat SA v Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures Ltd
(Case C-515/19)
(2019/C 295/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eutelsat SA

Defendants: Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures Ltd

Interveners: Viasat Inc. and Viasat UK Ltd

Questions referred







1.


What legal criteria are to be used in identifying a mobile earth station within the meaning of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008? (1) Is that decision to be read as requiring that a mobile earth station which communicates with a complementary ground component must also be capable, without the use of separate equipment, of communicating with a satellite? If so, how is it to be determined whether the equipment is one and the same?










2.


Is Article 2(2) of that decision to be interpreted as meaning that a mobile satellite system must be principally based on a satellite element, or can the view be taken, on a correct interpretation of that provision, that it is immaterial what the respective roles of the satellite and ground elements may be, even where the satellite element serves a purpose only where communication with the ground element is impossible? Can complementary ground components covering the entire territory of the European Union be installed on the basis that communications with the space stations cannot be ensured with the required quality in any respect, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of the same decision?










3.


In a case where it is shown that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision has not, by the deadline laid down in Article 4(1)(c)(ii), complied with the commitments as to geographical coverage of mobile satellite systems set out in Article 7(2), are the competent authorities of the Member State required to refuse authorisation to operate complementary ground components? If not, are they entitled to refuse such authorisation?






(1)  Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15).
Case C-518/19 P: Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Jakov Ardalic and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16, Ardalic and Others v Council
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, amendment of a law, expatriate worker, judicial review, paid leave, principle of proportionality, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019357EN.01001501.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/15






Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Jakov Ardalic and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16, Ardalic and Others v Council
(Case C-518/19 P)
(2019/C 357/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Jakov Ardalic, Liliana Bicanova, Monica Brunetto, Claudia Istoc, Sylvie Jamet, Despina Kanellou, Christian Stouraitis, Abdelhamid Azbair, Abdel Bouzanih, Bob Kitenge Ya Musenga, El Miloud Sadiki, Cam Tran Thi (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a number of errors of law.
Firstly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 65 and 73 of the judgment in limiting the extent of the judicial review it is required to carry out to ‘manifest’ cases.
Secondly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment in finding that the appellants were not in a comparable situation to staff members who retained the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of their annual travel expenses.
Thirdly, the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 67 and 78 to 84 of the judgment, that the regulations at issue do not infringe the principle of proportionality.
Case T-469/19: Action brought on 8 July 2019 — Barzanti v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01008001.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/80






Action brought on 8 July 2019 — Barzanti v Parliament
(Case T-469/19)
(2019/C 295/105)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Roberto Barzanti (Siena, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2019 — EAC/A05/2018 — European Solidarity Corps (OJ C 444, 10.12.2018)
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU office or agency, EU programme, international voluntary worker, invitation to tender, voluntary organisation, voluntary work








C_2019229EN.01002201.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 229/22






Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2019 — EAC/A05/2018 — European Solidarity Corps
(
Official Journal C 444 of 10 December 2018
)
(2019/C 229/05)
On page 20, point 5 ‘Deadline for the submission of applications’, entry ‘Volunteering Teams in high priority areas’:

for:


‘28 September 2019’,


read:


‘24 January 2020’.
Case T-480/16: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2019 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark For you — Decision to reject the application for registration based on absolute grounds for refusal — No longer any locus standi — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019328EN.01005201.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/52






Order of the General Court of 8 July 2019 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you)
(Case T-480/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark For you - Decision to reject the application for registration based on absolute grounds for refusal - No longer any locus standi - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 328/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger and M. Wolter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Amedei Srl (Pontedera, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 851/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Amedei and Lidl Stiftung.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



Each party shall bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case T-487/19: Action brought on 8 July 2019 — CU v Committee of the Regions
Date: 2019-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, promotion, remuneration of work, seniority, wage determination








C_2019295EN.01008102.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/81






Action brought on 8 July 2019 — CU v Committee of the Regions
(Case T-487/19)
(2019/C 295/107)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CU (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the 18 October 2018 reducing the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of the applicant’s remuneration following his promotion to grade AD 14 during the 2018 promotion exercise;










—


order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), read in conjunction with Article 7(7) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the contested decision infringes the applicant’s acquired right to an increase in the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of his remuneration corresponding to the value of the automatic step advancement.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement, by the contested decision, of the fundamental right to equal treatment and the principle of proportionality in so far as two officials of equivalent merit and seniority who are promoted on the same day are treated differently.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation that the value of his automatically acquired step advancement will be maintained following his subsequent promotion, on the ground that the multiplication factor was reduced ten months after the initial act.