do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-337/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2020 — DM, LR v Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) Alpes-Provence
Date: 2020-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, damages, financial transaction, payment, regulation of transactions








C_2020339EN.01000301.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2020 — DM, LR v Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) Alpes-Provence
(Case C-337/20)
(2020/C 339/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: DM, LR

Defendant: Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) Alpes-Provence

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 58 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) to be interpreted as establishing a liability regime for unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions made by payment service providers, precluding any action under the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same acts for breach by that provider of the obligations imposed on him or her by national law, in particular where the payment service user fails to inform the payment service provider of the unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transaction within 13 months of the date of debit?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that same article preclude the payment service user’s guarantor from invoking the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same facts against the payment service provider, beneficiary of the guarantee, in order to challenge the amount of the secured debt?






(1)  OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1.
Case C-330/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 23 July 2020 — IP v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya (Regional Tax Tribunal of Catalonia)
Date: 2020-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, equal treatment, exchange of information, free movement of capital, freedom of movement, personal income tax, principle of proportionality, residence, tax collection, tax law








C_2020359EN.01000401.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 23 July 2020 — IP v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya (Regional Tax Tribunal of Catalonia)
(Case C-330/20)
(2020/C 359/06)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice, Catalonia, Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IP

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya (Regional Tax Tribunal of Catalonia)

Questions referred







1.


Is a provision of national law such as Article 39(2) of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas (Income Tax Law) 35/2006 of 28 November 2006, as amended by Article 3(2) of Law 7/2012 of 29 October 2012, which ‘in all cases’ classes [goods, assets or rights] as ‘unjustified capital gains’, on which tax must be paid in the earliest period which has not yet become time-barred, in the event of failure to comply with the formal aspects of the requirement to provide information via ‘Form 720’ on goods located abroad or rights and assets deposited abroad, or where the information is submitted late, without having regard to the rules on limitation established in the Ley General Tributaria (General Tax Law) 58/2003, other than in the cases of ‘declared income’ or income arising in periods during which the individual was not a tax resident in Spain, contrary to EU law, specifically Articles 63 and 65 TFEU and the fundamental principles of free movement, equal treatment and non-discrimination?










2.


If the reply is in the negative, on the grounds that it is proportionate, is a provision of national law such as Article 39(2) of the Income Tax Law 35/2006 of 28 November 2006, which has the consequences set out above, contrary to EU law, specifically Articles 63 and 65 TFEU and the fundamental principles of free movement, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality, where the income in question has been declared late, but before any form of tax audit has been commenced or notified and no tax information exchange request has been made, although there is such an arrangement in place with the third-party State?
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2020/1104 of 23 July 2020 on the reconfirmation of the authorisation of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI/1/2020)
Date: 2020-07-23
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: EU military mission, EU restrictive measure, Libya, Mediterranean region (EU), arms trade, export, illicit trade, international sanctions, military cooperation, petroleum








L_2020242EN.01000301.xml










28.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 242/3








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1104
of 23 July 2020
         
on the reconfirmation of the authorisation of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI/1/2020)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/472 of 31 March 2020 on a European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 March 2020, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/472, which established and launched a European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) for the period until 31 March 2021.












(2)


Article 8(3) of Decision (CFSP) 2020/472 provides that, notwithstanding this period, the authorisation of the operation is to be reconfirmed every four months and that the Political and Security Committee is to prolong the operation unless the deployment of maritime assets of the operation produces a pull effect on migration on the basis of substantiated evidence gathered according to the criteria set out in the Operations Plan.












(3)


The Operation Commander provided monthly pull factor reports.












(4)


The authorisation of the operation should be reconfirmed for the second four-month period of its mandate and the operation should be prolonged accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The authorisation of EUNAVFOR MED IRINI is hereby reconfirmed and the operation is prolonged from 31 July 2020 to 30 November 2020.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 23 July 2020.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 101, 1.4.2020, p. 4.
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 May 2020 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.)) 2020/C 243/06
Date: 2020-07-23
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, epidemic, infectious disease, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2020243EN.01001201.xml










23.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/12






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 May 2020


(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004
 (1)

)


(2020/C 243/06)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
The base rates for Iceland and Norway as from 1 May, have been updated in light of exceptional circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.5.2020 –


2,78


–0,56 


0,99






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Case C-343/20 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2020 by easyJet Airline Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-8/18, easyJet Airline v Commission
Date: 2020-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, airport, control of State aid, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid, rights of the defence, services of general interest








C_2020297EN.01003801.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/38






Appeal brought on 23 July 2020 by easyJet Airline Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-8/18, easyJet Airline v Commission
(Case C-343/20 P)
(2020/C 297/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, avocat, A. Manzaneque Valverde, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and/or annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) of 29 July 2016 on State Aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports from public service obligations (SGEI), to the extent that it concerns the appellant;










—


in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following four grounds:
First, the judgment under appeal erred in law by mixing the assessment of two conditions for the existence of State aid (state resources and advantage).
Second, the judgment under appeal erred in law by considering that the MEO test could not be applied in the present case. The General Court erred in concluding that the airport operators did not contribute significant amounts of their own funds and did not act as private market economy operators. Furthermore, the reasoning in the judgment under appeal as to the non-application of the MEO test, infringed Article 345 TFUE, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as well as easyJet's rights of defence.
Third, the judgment under appeal erred in law by concluding that the airport operators acted as mere intermediaries of the Region of Sardinia.
Fourth, the judgment under appeal erred in law regarding the identification of: (i) the final beneficiaries of the regional scheme; (ii) the indirect advantage; and (iii) the secondary effects of the scheme.


(1)  OJ 2017, L 268, p. 1.
Case C-342/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 July 2020 — A SCPI
Date: 2020-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, corporation tax, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, investment company, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2020339EN.01000601.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 July 2020 — A SCPI
(Case C-342/20)
(2020/C 339/07)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A SCPI

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Question referred

Are Articles 49, 63 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation under which only foreign open-ended investment funds constituted by contract can be regarded as equivalent to Finnish investment funds exempt from income tax, meaning that foreign investment funds established in a legal form other than by contract are subject to withholding tax in Finland, even though there are otherwise no significant objective differences between their situation and that of Finnish investment funds?