do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-208/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 5 May 2015 — Stock ’94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
Date: 2015-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, contract, regulation of transactions, service, supply








C_2015236EN.01002701.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 5 May 2015 — Stock ’94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
(Case C-208/15)
(2015/C 236/37)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stock ’94 Szolgáltató Zrt.

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

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1(2), Article 2(1)(a) and (c), Article 14(1), Article 24(1), Article 73, Article 78(b), and Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 (‘the VAT Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that a supply of goods and a grant of a loan made in accordance with a contract concluded between an integrator and an integrated producer constitute distinct and independent transactions for the purposes of VAT liability, or as meaning that a single transaction is carried out, the tax base of which includes, in addition to the consideration for the goods supplied, the interest on the loan granted?










2.


If the latter interpretation is in accordance with the VAT Directive, may the VAT Directive be interpreted, as regards the single transaction which covers the supply of goods subject to VAT and the supply of services exempt from VAT, as meaning that the transaction constitutes an exception to the principle of the general application of VAT? If so, what criteria must be met?










3.


Does the fact that the integrator may, in accordance with the contract, supply further services to the integrated producer, at the latter’s request, or may purchase all of the agricultural goods produced, influence the answer to the foregoing questions and if so, to what extent?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).
Case T-715/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community mark Castello — Earlier national figurative mark ‘Castelló’ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01003002.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/30





Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
(Case T-715/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community mark Castello - Earlier national figurative mark ‘Castelló’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 205/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Horno del Espinar, S L (El Espinar, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG;










2)


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Case T-231/15: Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Haswani v Council
Date: 2015-05-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2015213EN.01004001.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/40





Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Haswani v Council
(Case T-231/15)
(2015/C 213/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria insofar as it concerns the applicant;










—


order, as a result, that Mr George Haswani’s name be removed from the annexes to the above-mentioned acts;










—


order the Council to pay EUR 7 00  000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss suffered;










—


order the Council to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant, which he reserves the right to justify during the course of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: the Council violated the applicant’s right of defence, right to a hearing and right to a fair trial.










2.


Second plea in law: the Council failed to state reasons to the extent that the reasoning of the contested acts is insufficient and imprecise.










3.


Third plea in law: the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to provide evidence to the extent that there are no genuine and reasonable grounds for the restrictive measures taken against the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law: the Council infringed the general principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea in law: the Council should compensate the applicant.
Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 to 28 February 2015 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)
Date: 2015-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product








C_2015148EN.01000101.xml










5.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/1





Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 to 28 February 2015
(Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))
(2015/C 148/01)
—   Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted













Date of the decision


Name of the medicinal product


INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)


Holder of the marketing authorisation


Number of the entry in the Community Register


Pharmaceutical form


ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)


Date of notification




10.2.2015


Suvaxyn CSF Marker


Live Recombinant E2 gene deleted Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus containing Classical Swine Fever E2 (CP7_E2alf)


Zoetis Belgium S.A.
Rue Laid Burniat 1, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique


EU/2/14/179


Lyophilisate and solvent for suspension for injection


QI09AD04


12.2.2015




Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:





The European Medicines Agency




30, Churchill Place, Canary Wharf




UK - LONDON E14 5EU






(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.