do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 23 October 2019 on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (CON/2019/35)2019/C 373/02
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the European Central Bank








C_2019373EN.01000201.xml










5.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/2






Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank
of 23 October 2019
on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
(CON/2019/35)
(2019/C 373/02)

Introduction and legal basis

On 18 October 2019 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on Council Recommendation of 10 October 2019 (1) on the appointment of a member of the ECB’s Executive Board.
The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations









1.


The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Fabio PANETTA be appointed as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 January 2020.












2.


The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty.












3.


The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Fabio PANETTA as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 October 2019.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI




(1)  OJ C 351, 17.10.2019, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9451 — Mall Group/Československá obchodní banka/MallPay) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 371/02
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electronic commerce, electronic money, financial services, merger control, payment system, provision of services








C_2019371EN.01000201.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9451 — Mall Group/Československá obchodní banka/MallPay)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 371/02)
On 23 October 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 32019M9451. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-297/18: Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, interested party: Finanzpolizei
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal negligence, fine, imprisonment, principle of proportionality








C_2020077EN.01003602.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/36






Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, interested party: Finanzpolizei
(Case C-297/18) (1)

(2020/C 77/49)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1790 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis ofS these prescriptions (Revised 1958 Agreement) (Official Journal of the European Union L 274 of 11 October 2016)
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: UN regional commission, agreement (EU), approval, harmonisation of standards, motor vehicle, revision of an agreement, technical rule, vehicle parts








L_2019269EN.01001201.xml










23.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 269/12







Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1790 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis ofS these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement’)

(Official Journal of the European Union L 274 of 11 October 2016)


1. On the cover page and on page 2, in the title of the Decision:
for:


                  ‘
                  12 February 2016
                  ’,

read:


                  ‘
                  17 June 2016
                  ’.

2. On page 3, in the concluding formula:
for:


                  ‘Done at Brussels, 12 February 2016.’,

read:


                  ‘Done at Luxembourg, 17 June2016.’.
Case C-788/19: Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, foreign capital, sanction (EU), tax law, tax return, taxpayer








C_2019432EN.01003002.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/30






Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-788/19)
(2019/C 432/35)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that






—


by establishing consequences of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’ (‘Form 720’), which include the classification of those assets as unjustified capital gains which are not subject to the statute of limitation;










—


by automatically imposing a fixed penalty payment of 150 % applicable in the event of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’; and










—


by applying fixed penalty payments in respect of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’, the level of which is higher than that of the penalties laid down by the general rules on similar infringements;














—


the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21, 45, 56 and 63 TFEU, and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;










—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Spanish tax legislation imposes an obligation on tax residents in Spain to declare certain overseas assets and rights by means of a tax declaration form (‘Modelo 720’). Specific penalty provisions are to be applied if that obligation is not fulfilled or is fulfilled improperly.
The Commission concludes that penalties involving the classification of such assets as capital gains, the non-application of the normal rules on limitation periods and fixed penalty payments constitute a restriction of the fundamental freedoms under the TFEU and the EEA. Although in principle those measures may be appropriate for the purposes of achieving the aims pursued — which are to prevent and counter tax avoidance and tax evasion — they are disproportionate.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9556 — Triton/Grupo Fertiberia) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 371/01
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fertiliser industry, investment company, merger control








C_2019371EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9556 — Triton/Grupo Fertiberia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 371/01)
On 23 October 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 32019M9556. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-313/19: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Taghani v Commission
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), indemnification








C_2019432EN.01007201.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/72






Order of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Taghani v Commission
(Case T-313/19) (1)

(2019/C 432/83)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case C-227/19: Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by DX v Bürgermeister der Stadt Graz, interested party: Finanzpolizei
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative sanction, document storage, freedom to provide services, posted worker








C_2020077EN.01003803.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/38






Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by DX v Bürgermeister der Stadt Graz, interested party: Finanzpolizei
(Case C-227/19) (1)

(2020/C 77/55)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-786/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2019 — The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insured risk, maritime shipping, ownership, ship's flag, vehicle documents, vehicle registration, vessel








C_2020045EN.01001601.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2019 — The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
(Case C-786/19)
(2020/C 45/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Question referred

Is the second indent of Article 2(d) in conjunction with the first clause of Article 25(1) of Directive 88/357/EEC (1)and/or Article 46(2) of Directive 92/49/EEC (2) with regard to the determination of the Member State where the risk is situated to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of safeguarding against risks in connection with the operation of a seagoing vessel, the State concerned is the State in whose territory a seagoing vessel is entered in an official register for the purposes of proof of ownership, or the State whose flag is flown by the seagoing vessel?


(1)  Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
Case C-712/18: Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ZR, AR, BS v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld, interested party: Finanzpolizei
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative sanction, document storage, freedom to provide services, posted worker








C_2020077EN.01003701.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/37






Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ZR, AR, BS v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld, interested party: Finanzpolizei
(Case C-712/18) (1)

(2020/C 77/50)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case C-713/18: Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ZR, BS, AR v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld, interested party: Finanzpolizei
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative sanction, document storage, freedom to provide services, posted worker








C_2020077EN.01003702.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/37






Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ZR, BS, AR v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld, interested party: Finanzpolizei
(Case C-713/18) (1)

(2020/C 77/51)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case C-787/19: Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, flat-rate tax, infringement of EU law, provision of services, taxpayer, travel, travel agency








C_2019413EN.01003601.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/36






Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-787/19)
(2019/C 413/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Jokubauskaitė and M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax scheme applicable to travel agents travel services that are provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by allowing travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for value added tax on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a taxable period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1);
order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the scheme laid down in Austria for calculating the value added tax on travel services does not comply with Directive 2006/112. That directive lays down, in Articles 306 to 310, a special scheme pursuant to which travel services provided by a travel agent to a customer are to be regarded as a single service. Austrian law impermissibly departs from that scheme.
First, it is not permissible to exclude from the application of that special scheme taxable persons who use travel services for their business. In its judgment of 26 September 2013, Commission v Spain (C-189/11, EU:C:2013:587), the Court of Justice already held that the special scheme in question is applicable not only to services provided to private end consumers, but also to services provided to taxable undertakings. It is not open to Member States to restrict the application of that scheme to the former category. This was confirmed once more by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 February 2018, Commission v Germany (C-380/16, EU:C:2018:76).
Secondly, the calculation method provided for under the Austrian law on turnover tax is incompatible with Directive 2006/112. Under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of that directive, the taxable amount is to be determined separately for each journey. Austrian law, by contrast, allows the profit margin for ‘groups of services’ or for all journeys in a specific time period to be calculated at a flat-rate. In the abovementioned judgments the Court of Justice also held that a flat-rate calculation of that kind is not consistent with the common system of value added tax.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-383/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council (Interlocutory proceedings — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 — Loss of EU citizenship — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU visa policy, European citizenship, United Kingdom, area of freedom, security and justice, border control, external border of the EU, nationality, withdrawal from the EU








C_2019432EN.01005802.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/58






Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2019 — Walker and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-383/19 R)
(Interlocutory proceedings - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 - Loss of EU citizenship - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 432/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Hilary Elizabeth Walker (Cadix, Spain), Jennifer Ann Cording (Valdagno, Italy), Douglas Edward Watson (Beaumont-du-Périgord, France), Christopher David Randolph (Ballinlassa Belcarra Castlebar, Ireland), Michael Charles Strawson (Serralongue, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Cholakova, R. Meyer and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union (JO 2019 L 103 I, p.1), and second, the adoption of certain interim measures.

Operative part of the order







1.



The application for interim measures is dismissed.











2.



The costs are reserved.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9460 – Capgemini/Altran) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 284/02
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services, technology








C_2020284EN.01000201.xml










28.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9460 – Capgemini/Altran)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 284/02)
On 23 October 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 32019M9460. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.