do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-621/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 20 August 2019 – Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, import (EU), ownership, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2019363EN.01000902.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 20 August 2019 – Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-621/19)
(2019/C 363/16)
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 167 and Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) [of 28 November 2006] on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is required to pay on imported goods is conditional on a right of ownership in respect of the imported goods or on the right to dispose of the imported goods as owner?










2.


Must Article 168(e) of Directive 2006/112/EC … be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is required to pay on imported goods arises only if the imported goods are used for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxable transactions in the form of the sale of the goods in the national territory or the supply of the goods to another Member State or the export of the goods to a third country?










3.


In such circumstances, is the condition that there be a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transaction satisfied and, more specifically, is it permissible to apply, in the present case, the traditional interpretation of the right of deduction based on a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transactions with regard to cost components that have not arisen in relation to the goods and that cannot therefore be reflected in the price of the output supply?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9330 — Denso/Hirose) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, electronic component, industrial product, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2019309EN.01000402.xml










13.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9330 — Denso/Hirose)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 309/03)
On 20 August 2019, 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 32019M9330. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-620/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2019 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, civil proceedings, claim, data protection, financial solvency, personal data, tax authorities








C_2019383EN.01004301.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/43






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2019 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)
(Case C-620/19)
(2019/C 383/51)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law, appellant in the first appeal and defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law, respondent in the first appeal and applicant: D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

Interested party: the representative of the federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 23(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) also serve to protect the interests of financial authorities?










2.


If so, does the wording ‘the enforcement of civil law claims’ also cover the defence of the financial authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted?










3.


Does the provision of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/279 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the financial authority?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9332 — Ericsson/Kathrein Antenna and Filter Assets) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 56/01
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, computer network, economic concentration, information network, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2020056EN.01000101.xml










19.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9332 — Ericsson/Kathrein Antenna and Filter Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 56/01)
On 20 August 2019, 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 32019M9332. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-579/19: Action brought on 20 August 2019 — The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic or sports equipment)
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, sports equipment








C_2019337EN.01002101.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/21






Action brought on 20 August 2019 — The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic or sports equipment)
(Case T-579/19)
(2019/C 337/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellmann-Cordner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Design at issue: Multiple application for registration of European Union designs (Gymnastic or sports equipment) — Registration No 5807179 0001-0012

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 573/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the defendant’s decision of 16 January 2019 in so far as priority was not given to European Union design No 5807179 0001-0012; uphold the claimed priority of 26 October 2017 and provide for a corrected notification of the European Union design indicating the priority;










—


reimburse it for the appeal fee;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


alternatively, conduct a hearing.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 41(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019281EN.01000201.xml










20.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 August 2019
(2019/C 281/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1103 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,34 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4582 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91583 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7268 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0884 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9658 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,780 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,76 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3702 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7318 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2181 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6376 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4729 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7095 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7296 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5376 




KRW


South Korean won


1 343,14 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0524 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8283 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3870 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 805,12 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6377 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,171 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,2984 




THB


Thai baht


34,247 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4355 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8458 




INR


Indian rupee


79,2800 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on 'Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in order to take appropriate account of the global data collection system for ship fuel oil consumption data' (OJ C 240, 16.7.2019)
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, climate change, consumption, data collection, environmental monitoring, greenhouse gas, marine fuel, maritime transport, pollution from ships, reduction of gas emissions








C_2019282EN.01006001.xml










20.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/60






Corrigendum to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in order to take appropriate account of the global data collection system for ship fuel oil consumption data’

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 240 of 16 July 2019
)

(2019/C 282/10)
On page 43, paragraph 3.1:

for:


‘This seems to be in conflict with the new amended provision of the proposal in Article 9(1)(f) (new) stating that any monitoring (on a per voyage basis) of cargo carried shall be voluntary, as the proposed change to the cargo carried is only a voluntary monitoring item and as such is not aligned with the UN IMO DCS.’,


read:


‘This seems to be in conflict with the new amended provision of the proposal in Article 9(1)(f) stating that any monitoring (on a per voyage basis) of cargo carried shall be voluntary, as the proposed change to the cargo carried is only a voluntary monitoring item and as such is not aligned with the UN IMO DCS.’;

on page 43, paragraph 3.2:

for:


‘The proposed Article 11(2) (new) could be amended as follows:’,


read:


‘The proposed Article 11(2) could be amended as follows:’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9452 — Global Payments/TSYS) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic money, merger control, payment system








C_2019281EN.01002401.xml










20.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/24






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9452 — Global Payments/TSYS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 281/05)

1.   
On 9 August 2019, 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:






—


Global Payments (United States) and,










—


TSYS (United States).




Global Payments enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with TSYS.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Global Payments: provision of payment technology solutions and payment card transaction processing and,
—   for TSYS: provision of issuer solutions, merchant solutions, and consumer solutions in payment services.


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.9452 — Global Payments/TSYS
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’).
Case T-580/19: Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council
Date: 2019-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_2019357EN.01004001.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/40






Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council
(Case T-580/19)
(2019/C 357/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


cancel the decision taken by the Council on 27 May 2019, pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855, to maintain the applicant on the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;










—


order the Council to remove the applicant from the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;










—


order the Council to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council has not respected the standard of proof to sanction persons and entities in adopting and maintaining the applicant on the EU sanctions lists as the contested measures are not supported by any legitimate ground.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error of fact as Mr. Borborudi does not work for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran anymore (the ‘AEOI’), as the AEOI is not a UN sanctioned entity anymore and that the AMAD plan was halted in 2003.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error in law as it has not qualified the quantitative or qualitative significance of the alleged support of Mr. Borborudi to the Iranian nuclear program.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to substantiate the restrictive measure it has adopted against the applicant as it has not communicated the elements that would prove the ground on which he has been sanctioned.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to communicate the documents supporting the motive, even after the applicant had asked for them.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles the European Union must abide to.