do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-263/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, VAT, business activity, investment project, provision of services, taxpayer








C_2015294EN.01002301.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-263/15)
(2015/C 294/28)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


In the circumstances of the present case, are the applicants acting as taxable persons in view of the fact that the interpretation of Article 9(1) (1) of the VAT Directive does not exclude activities carried out by companies from the scope of the term ‘economic activity’, even when those companies can only engage in commercial activities on an ancillary basis?










2.


Should the fact that the applicants receive a significant share of their funding from State aid and the fact that, in the context of the management of their operation, the applicants obtain income from charging modest fees, be taken into account for the purposes of considering whether the applicants are ‘taxable persons’?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, must it be considered that that ‘fee’ represents consideration for a service and that there is a direct link between the service rendered and the payment of the consideration?










4.


Does the management of the investment constitute a supply of services by the applicants, within the meaning of Article 24 of the VAT Directive, or can that management not be regarded as a supply of services on account of the fact that its performance is a legal obligation?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-604/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark 101 — Earlier Community word mark 501 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015236EN.01003801.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/38





Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
(Case T-604/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark 101 - Earlier Community word mark 501 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 236/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (New Castle, California, United States) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, and subsequently by: V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, Germany) (represented by: K. Kuck, K. Landes and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH.

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 (OHIM) of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH;










2.


Orders OHIM and L&O Hunting Group GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Levi Strauss & Co.






(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-273/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Lithomex v OHIM — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark LITHOFIX — Earlier national and international word marks LITHOFIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Similarity of goods — No obligation for an examination to be carried out in relation to all the goods covered by the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015236EN.01004002.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/40





Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Lithomex v OHIM — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)
(Case T-273/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark LITHOFIX - Earlier national and international word marks LITHOFIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Similarity of goods - No obligation for an examination to be carried out in relation to all the goods covered by the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 236/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG (Wendlingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 2280/2012-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG and Lithomex ApS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lithomex ApS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-578/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant protection products — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance — Refusal of the request for confidential treatment of certain information — Contested act not attributable to the defendant — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, marketing standard, plant health control, plant health product








C_2015236EN.01003701.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/37





Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission
(Case T-578/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Refusal of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Contested act not attributable to the defendant - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 236/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of the decision, notified by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013, to publish certain parts of documents in respect of which the applicants had requested confidentiality.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
Case T-448/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté prestige international (essence) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark essence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015236EN.01003501.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/35





Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté prestige international (essence)
(Case T-448/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark essence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 236/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and C. Pape, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beauté prestige international (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1085/2012-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Beauté prestige international and Bora Creations, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bora Creations, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carcinogenic substance, chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, toxic substance








C_2015182EN.01000301.xml










3.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/3





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 182/03)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2015) 3524


29 May 2015


Diarsenic trioxide
EC No 215-481-4
CAS No 1327-53-3


Yara France, Immeuble Opus 12, 77 Esplanade du Général de Gaulle CS 90047, 92914 Paris La Défense Cedex, FRANCE


REACH/15/1/0


The industrial use of diarsenic trioxide as a processing aid to activate the absorption and desorption of carbon dioxide by potassium carbonate from synthesis gas formed in the production of ammonia


21 March 2017








—


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health or the environment arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant, while transition to an alternative is envisaged within 22 months.










(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case F-78/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — Gross v EEAS (Civil Service — Staff of the EEAS — Officials — Promotion — Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Comparative examination of the merits of all officials eligible for promotion — Officials put forward by the services of the EEAS and those not put forward — Taking into account of the staff reports — Exclusively literal assessments)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European External Action Service, European official, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015228EN.01002701.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/27





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — Gross v EEAS
(Case F-78/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Staff of the EEAS - Officials - Promotion - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Comparative examination of the merits of all officials eligible for promotion - Officials put forward by the services of the EEAS and those not put forward - Taking into account of the staff reports - Exclusively literal assessments))
(2015/C 228/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philipp Oliver Gross (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis, laywer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicant to the next grade in the 2013 promotion procedure of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European External Action Service of 9 October 2013 establishing the list of officials promoted under promotion year 2013 in so far as the name of Mr Gross is not included;










2.


Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Gross.






(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 31.
Case F-128/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 3 June 2015 — Bedin v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary action — Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority — Assessment of whether the facts complained of are established)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015228EN.01002702.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/27





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 3 June 2015 — Bedin v Commission
(Case F-128/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary action - Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority - Assessment of whether the facts complained of are established))
(2015/C 228/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Luc Bedin (Watermael-Bisfort, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C.Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision to impose on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a 12-month period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Bedin to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p 51.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7640 — LBO France/IKKS) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, footwear industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015182EN.01000401.xml










3.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7640 — LBO France/IKKS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 182/04)






1.


On 22 May 2015, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which LBO France Gestion (‘LBO France’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of IKKS Group (‘IKKS’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for LBO France: private equity and leverage buy-out,
—   for IKKS: production and distribution of mid-range clothes and shoes for men, women and children.










3.


On preliminary examination, the European 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 Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The European Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the European Commission.
Observations must reach the European Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the European Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7640 — LBO France/IKKS, 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.
Addendum to the reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AD/205/10 — Administrators (AD 7)
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), customs, personnel administration








CA2015182EN.01000101.xml










3.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 182/1





ADDENDUM TO THE RESERVE LIST
Open competition EPSO/AD/205/10
Administrators (AD 7)
(2015/C 182 A/01)
 

Customs:







ALMEIDA


Paulo




The reserve list will be valid until 1 April 2018.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,05 % on 1 June 2015 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2015182EN.01000201.xml










3.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/2





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,05 % on 1 June 2015
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 June 2015
(2015/C 182/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1029




JPY


Japanese yen


137,52




DKK


Danish krone


7,4590




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72430




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3810




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0391




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,6755




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,439




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,29




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1288




RON


Romanian leu


4,4408




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9556




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4342




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3784




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5539




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5487




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4945




KRW


South Korean won


1 228,83




ZAR


South African rand


13,5207




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8358




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5725




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 570,85




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0769




PHP


Philippine peso


49,290




RUB


Russian rouble


58,5640




THB


Thai baht


37,255




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4735




MXN


Mexican peso


17,0376




INR


Indian rupee


70,4047






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.