do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-643/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 — Levy in the milk and milk products sector — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contractual liability, milk product, tax








C_2014315EN.01003002.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/30





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV and Others v European Commission
(Case C-643/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 - Levy in the milk and milk products sector - Manifest inadmissibility))
2014/C 315/48
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel, Mathijs H. H. M. Moonen (represented by: P. E. Mazel and A van Beelen, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel and Mathijs Moonen shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
Hercule III — Call for proposals — 2014 — Anti-fraud training
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fraud against the EU, invitation to tender, vocational training








C_2014227EN.01001401.xml










17.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/14





HERCULE III
Call for proposals — 2014
Anti-fraud training
2014/C 227/09
1.   Introduction and objectives

The general objective of the Hercule III programme shall be to protect the financial interests of the Union thus enhancing the competitiveness of the Union’s economy and ensuring the protection of the taxpayers’ money as defined in Article 3 of the programme.
The objective of this call is to provide grants for the organisation of targeted specialised and risk analysis training workshops, as well as appropriate conferences aimed at protecting the financial interests of the Union and at same time to attain an equivalent level of protection across the Union.
The Commission (OLAF) will award grants for actions which have as objective:






—


exchanging experience and best practices between the relevant authorities in the participating countries, including specialised law enforcement services, as well as representatives of international organisations,










—


disseminating knowledge, particularly on better identification of risk for investigative purposes.




The actions can be achieved through the organisation of: conferences, seminars, colloquia, courses, e-learning and symposia, workshops, hands-on training and staff exchanges, exchanges of best practices (including on fraud risk assessment).
2.   Eligible applicants

As defined in Article 6 of the programme, applicants must be:






—


National or regional administrations of a Member State and a participating country which promote the strengthening of action at Union level to protect the financial interests of the Union,
or










—


Research and educational institutes and non-profit-making entities provided that they have been established and have been operating for at least one year, in a Member State or a participating country, and promote the strengthening of action at Union level to protect the financial interests of the Union.
Article 7(2) of the programme defines the participating countries other than Member States.




3.   Budget and duration of projects

The total budget earmarked for this call for proposals is estimated at EUR 900 000.
EU co-financing will be provided to a maximum of 80 % of the total eligible costs.
The training must relate to a project starting on 13 April 2015 at the earliest and finishing on or before 31 December 2015 at the latest.
4.   Deadline

Applications must be submitted to the Commission no later than:

Monday, 15 September 2014.
5.   Further information

The full text of the call for proposals, application form and related documents are available on the following website:
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/funding/hercule-iii/index_en.htm
Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the abovementioned texts and be submitted on the forms provided.
Case C-272/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption of imported goods which are intended to be placed under warehousing arrangements other than customs — Obligation to physically place the goods in the warehouse — Non-compliance — Obligation to pay VAT notwithstanding the fact that it has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, customs warehouse, import (EU), tax exemption








C_2014315EN.01001601.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/16





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
(Case C-272/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption of imported goods which are intended to be placed under warehousing arrangements other than customs - Obligation to physically place the goods in the warehouse - Non-compliance - Obligation to pay VAT notwithstanding the fact that it has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism))
2014/C 315/23
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Equoland Soc. coop. arl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 16(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2006/18/EC of 14 February 2006, in the version resulting from Article 28c of the Sixth Directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the grant of an exemption from the payment of the value added tax on importation provided for by that legislation subject to the condition that goods which are imported and destined for a tax warehouse for the purposes of value added tax be physically placed in that warehouse;










2.


Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/18, must be interpreted, in accordance with the principle of neutrality of value added tax, as precluding national legislation under which a Member State requires the payment of value added tax on importation even though that tax has been settled already under the reverse charge mechanism through self-invoicing and entry in the sales and purchases register of the taxable person.






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case C-141/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark Walzer Traum — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Walzertraum — Concept of genuine use of the mark — Failure to take earlier decisions into account — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, equal treatment, proof, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, turnover








C_2014315EN.01001102.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/11





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH
(Case C-141/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark Walzer Traum - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Walzertraum - Concept of genuine use of the mark - Failure to take earlier decisions into account - Principle of equal treatment))
2014/C 315/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (represented by: T. Raubal, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014227EN.01000401.xml










17.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 July 2014
2014/C 227/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3532




JPY


Japanese yen


137,73




DKK


Danish krone


7,4566




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79030




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2495




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2156




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3850




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,446




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,13




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1373




RON


Romanian leu


4,4361




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8711




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4480




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4564




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4881




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5548




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6816




KRW


South Korean won


1 393,23




ZAR


South African rand


14,4569




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3976




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6220




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 832,67




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3154




PHP


Philippine peso


59,010




RUB


Russian rouble


46,5510




THB


Thai baht


43,453




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0047




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5179




INR


Indian rupee


81,3003






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I (Germany)) — Adala Bero v Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13) (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 16(1) — Detention for the purpose of removal — Detention in prison accommodation — Not possible to provide accommodation for third-country nationals in a specialised detention facility — No such facility in the Land where the third-country national is detained)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Federation State, Germany, area of freedom, security and justice, illegal migration, imprisonment, removal, return migration








C_2014315EN.01002202.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/22





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I (Germany)) — Adala Bero v Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)
(Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 16(1) - Detention for the purpose of removal - Detention in prison accommodation - Not possible to provide accommodation for third-country nationals in a specialised detention facility - No such facility in the Land where the third-country national is detained))
2014/C 315/33
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Adala Bero (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate (C-514/13)

Defendants: Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as requiring a Member State, as a rule, to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility.


(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 92/2013 of 3 May 2013 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement ( OJ L 291, 31.10.2013 )
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, air safety, air space, air traffic control, revision of an agreement








L_2014211EN.01004801.xml










17.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 211/48







Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 92/2013 of 3 May 2013 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 291 of 31 October 2013
)








1.


On page 58, in Article 3:




for:

               ‘No …/… of … (2) [incorporating Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 into the EEA Agreement]’,
read:

               ‘No 228/2013 of 13 December 2013 (2)’ ;






2.


On page 58, footnote 2:




for:







‘(2)


Not yet published in the Official Journal.’,





read:







‘(2)



OJ L 154, 22.5.2014, p. 25.’.
Case C-654/13: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 183 — Reimbursement of excess VAT — National rules preventing the payment of default interest on VAT not recoverable within a reasonable period on account of a condition held to be contrary to EU law — Principle of equivalence)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, interest, tax rebate








C_2014315EN.01003101.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/31





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
(Case C-654/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Reimbursement of excess VAT - National rules preventing the payment of default interest on VAT not recoverable within a reasonable period on account of a condition held to be contrary to EU law - Principle of equivalence))
2014/C 315/49
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

Operative part of the order

EU law, and in particular Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation and practice of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prevent the payment of default interest on amounts of value added tax which were not recoverable within a reasonable period and on account of a national provision held to be contrary to EU law. In the absence of EU legislation on the subject, it is for the national law to establish, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the procedure for the payment of such interest, which must not be less favourable than that applicable to actions based on infringement of domestic law with a similar purpose and cause of action to those based on the infringement of the EU law or be arranged such as to render the exercise of the rights conferred by the European Union legal order impossible in practice or excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain in the case before it. The national courts are required, if necessary, to disapply any provision of national law contrary to EU law.


(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7305 — TDR Capital/Delek Europe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, economic concentration, fuel, investment company, merger control, parent company








C_2014227EN.01001901.xml










17.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7305 — TDR Capital/Delek Europe)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 227/12






1.


On 9 July 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking TDR Capital LLP (‘TDR’, UK) via a newly-incorporated company DEL Acquisitions B.V. (‘DEL’, the Netherlands) will acquire sole control of the undertaking Delek Europe B.V. (‘Delek Europe’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


TDR is a private equity firm which invests — mainly in the UK — in a variety of sectors including gyms and health clubs, vacant property services, modular construction, pubs and restaurants, debt purchasing, logistic pallet return and life assurance.










—


Delek Europe is the parent company of a number of subsidiaries through which it operates in the fuel marketing operations business in Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It also supplies fuels in bulk and lubricants to wholesalers, industrial customers and transportation companies in the Benelux region.














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 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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7305 — TDR Capital/Delek Europe, to the following 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-648/11: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2014329EN.01002403.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/24





Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)
(Case T-648/11) (1)

2014/C 329/35
Language of the case: English
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
Case C-344/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 July 2014  — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, allergy, food additive, foodstuff, medicinal product, public health








C_2014339EN.01001001.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 July 2014 — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
(Case C-344/14)
2014/C 339/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Questions referred







1.


Do amino acid mixes such as those at issue in the present case (RM0630 and RM0789), from which (in combination with carbohydrates and fats) a foodstuff is manufactured by which a substance that is vital for health and present in normal diet but which can in individual cases trigger an allergic reaction is replaced and, as a result, allergy-induced health impairments can be avoided and existing complaints alleviated, if not cured, constitute medicaments consisting of two or more constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses within the meaning of heading 3003 of the Combined Nomenclature (1)?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative:










2.


Do the amino acid mixes constitute food preparations under heading 2106 of the Combined Nomenclature which, pursuant to note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature, are excluded from Chapter 30 because they have no prophylactic or therapeutic effect beyond the supply of nutrition?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1).