do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-103/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 27 February 2020 — RC v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of capital, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, real property, residence, right of establishment, tax law, transfer of property








C_2020191EN.01000902.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 27 February 2020 — RC v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-103/20)
(2020/C 191/13)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RC

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC preclude national legislation, such as that in dispute in the main proceedings, that, by default, subjects capital gains resulting from the disposal of immovable property situated in a Member State, where that disposal was made by a resident of another Member State, to tax treatment different from that which would apply, in relation to the same type of transaction, to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated, but provides that the non-resident taxable person can elect to be taxed in the same way as a resident taxable person?










2.


Specifically, do those provisions of EU law preclude the coexistence of:






(i)


a rule according to which a special rate of tax of 28 % applies to capital gains on immovable property realised by non-residents;










(ii)


a rule according to which only 50 % of the balance of capital gains realised in a year is taken into account in relation to disposals made by residents; and










(iii)


a rule according to which residents in another EU Member State can elect to be taxed at the general rates applicable to residents (instead of the special rate applicable to non-residents) provided they aggregate their entire income, including income obtained inside and outside the territory of that Member State, on the same terms as apply to residents?














3.


That is to say, do the provisions of EU law preclude a non-resident from having to elect between






(i)


being taxed on 100 % at the special rate; or










(ii)


being taxed on 50 %, in the same way as residents, at the rates applicable to residents provided they aggregate their entire income on the same terms as apply to residents?
Case T-127/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — France v ECHA
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aluminium, chemical product, chemical salt, environmental protection, health risk, scientific report








C_2020191EN.01002001.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/20






Action brought on 27 February 2020 — France v ECHA
(Case T-127/20)
(2020/C 191/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA of 17 December 2019 in joined cases A-003-2018, A-004-2018 and A-005-2018 annulling the ECHA’s three decisions of 21 December 2017 on the substance evaluation of aluminium chloride, aluminium chloride basic and aluminium sulphate;










—


order the ECHA to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas, alleging an error of law.






1.


First plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding, in the contested decision, that the ECHA should have taken into account the Schönholzer (1997) study even though that study had not been introduced to it during the evaluation procedure. In that regard, the applicant raises the following complaints:






—


first, infringement of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1);










—


second, breach of the duty on manufacturers and importers to provide all relevant and available information on the risks presented by the substances, which constitutes one of the core principles of the protection system established by that regulation;










—


third, the exercise of an inadequate standard of review of the ECHA’s three decisions on the substance evaluations concerned.














2.


Second plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in relying, in the contested decision, on an erroneous interpretation of the case-law of the General Court of the European Union according to which, in order to demonstrate that a request for additional information on a substance is necessary, the ECHA must, inter alia, establish that there is a realistic possibility that the information requested would lead to improved risk management measures being taken.
Case C-803/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — AAS ‘Balta’ v UAB ‘Grifs AG’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 15, point 5 and Article 16, point 5 — Insurance of ‘large risks’ — Jurisdiction clause agreed upon by the policyholder and the insurer — Whether that clause may be relied on against the insured person)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insured risk, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence, third-party insurance








C_2020137EN.01002101.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/21






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — AAS ‘Balta’ v UAB ‘Grifs AG’
(Case C-803/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 15, point 5 and Article 16, point 5 - Insurance of ‘large risks’ - Jurisdiction clause agreed upon by the policyholder and the insurer - Whether that clause may be relied on against the insured person)
(2020/C 137/27)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AAS ‘Balta’

Defendant: UAB ‘Grifs AG’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15, point 5, and Article 16, point 5, of Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction clause in an insurance contract covering a ‘large risk’, within the meaning of the latter provision, concluded by the policyholder and the insurer, may not be relied on against the party insured under that contract, who is not an insurance professional, who has not consented to that clause and who is domiciled in a Member State other than that in which the policyholder and the insurer are domiciled.


(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case C-108/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2020 — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax evasion, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2020201EN.01001401.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2020 — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
(Case C-108/20)
(2020/C 201/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HR

Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

Question referred

Are Articles 167 and 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application of national law under which input tax deductions are not to be allowed where, when turnover tax fraud about which a taxable person knew or should have known was committed at a preceding stage, the taxable person, through the transaction carried out with him or her, did not participate in and was not connected to the turnover tax fraud and did not encourage or facilitate the turnover tax fraud committed?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 February 2020 2020/C 64/04
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020064EN.01001501.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/15






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 February 2020
(2020/C 64/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0875 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4710 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84150 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5813 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0606 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2113 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,344 




HUF


Hungarian forint


339,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3094 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8050 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6981 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6565 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4469 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4742 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7273 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5204 




KRW


South Korean won


1 322,29 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4555 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6329 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4605 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 221,86 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5952 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,538 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,2368 




THB


Thai baht


34,664 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7741 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8060 




INR


Indian rupee


77,9195 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-298/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2), TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical salt, infringement procedure (EU), pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources, sanction (EU), water protection








C_2020161EN.01001202.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/12






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-298/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2), TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum)
(2020/C 161/17)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 April 2015 in Commission v Greece (C-149/14, not published, EU:C:2015:264), by the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission, namely 5 December 2017, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 3 500 000, to an account to be indicated by it.










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-25/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Corporis sp. z o.o. v Gefion Insurance A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/138/EC — Representation of a non-life insurance undertaking — Representative permanently resident in national territory — Service of documents — Receipt of the document initiating proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Non-applicability)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agency abroad, indemnity insurance, insurance company, motor vehicle insurance, residence, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2020137EN.01002202.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/22






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Corporis sp. z o.o. v Gefion Insurance A/S
(Case C-25/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Representation of a non-life insurance undertaking - Representative permanently resident in national territory - Service of documents - Receipt of the document initiating proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Non-applicability)
(2020/C 137/29)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corporis sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 152(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), read in conjunction with Article 151 of that directive and recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the appointment by a non-life insurance undertaking of a representative in the host Member State also includes the authorisation for that representative to receive a document initiating court proceedings for damages in respect of a road traffic accident.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case C-298/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg — Germany) — Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfer of an undertaking — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Operation of bus routes — Re-employment of the staff — Operating resources not taken over — Grounds)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, bus, carrier, labour law, operating cost, public transport, transfer of businesses, transport lines








C_2020137EN.01000501.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg — Germany) — Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH
(Case C-298/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfer of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Operation of bus routes - Re-employment of the staff - Operating resources not taken over - Grounds)
(2020/C 137/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle

Defendants: Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the takeover by an economic entity of an activity the pursuit of which requires substantial operating resources, under a procedure for the award of a public contract, the fact that that entity does not take over those resources, which are the property of the economic entity previously engaged in that activity, on account of legal, environmental and technical constraints imposed by the contracting authority, cannot necessarily preclude the classification of that takeover of activity as a transfer of an undertaking, since other factual circumstances, such as the taking-over of the majority of the employees and the pursuit, without interruption, of that activity, make it possible to establish that the identity of the economic entity concerned has been retained, this being a matter for the referring court to assess.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case C-109/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 February 2020 — Republic of Poland v PL Holdings Sàrl
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arbitration clause, international commercial arbitration, interpretation of the law, investment company, jurisdiction








C_2020161EN.01004001.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/40






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 February 2020 — Republic of Poland v PL Holdings Sàrl
(Case C-109/20)
(2020/C 161/52)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant and cross-respondent: Republic of Poland

Appellant and cross-respondent: PL Holdings Sàrl

Question referred

Do Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, as interpreted in Achmea, (1) mean that an arbitration agreement is invalid if it has been concluded between a Member State and an investor — where an investment agreement contains an arbitration clause that is invalid as a result of the fact that the contract was concluded between two Member States — [despite the fact that] the Member State, after arbitration proceedings were commenced by the investor, refrains, by the free will of the State, from raising objections as to jurisdiction?


(1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2018 (Case C-284/16, Achmea, EU:C:2018:158).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9689 — Apollo Management/Tech Data Corporation) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 64/08
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, technology, wholesale trade








C_2020064EN.01003201.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/32






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9689 — Apollo Management/Tech Data Corporation)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 64/08)

1.   
On 19 February 2020, 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:






—


Apollo Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, USA)










—


Tech Data Corporation (‘Tech Data’, USA).




Apollo acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Tech Data.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a public bid.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Apollo: investment funds,










—


for Tech Data: wholesale distribution of technology products and solutions to Resellers.






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.9689 — Apollo Management/Tech Data Corporation
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-130/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (SIENNA SELECTION)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, smoking, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2020175EN.01002901.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/29






Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (SIENNA SELECTION)
(Case T-130/20)
(2020/C 175/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SIENNA SELECTION — Application for registration No 17 954 903

Contested decision: Decision of the fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2019 in Case R 1675/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.