do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 830/2014 of 30 July 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 as regards the product scope of the current anti-dumping measures concerning stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, and as regards newcomer review requests, and providing for the possibility of repayment or remission of duties in certain cases (OJ L 228, 31.7.2014)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), industrial product, originating product, steel








L_2015229EN.01001601.xml










3.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 229/16







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 830/2014 of 30 July 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 as regards the product scope of the current anti-dumping measures concerning stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, and as regards newcomer review requests, and providing for the possibility of repayment or remission of duties in certain cases

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 228 of 31 July 2014
)


On page 21, Article 2(a) and on page 22, Article 3, text of the footnote:
for:







‘(*)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 830/2014 of 30 July 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 as regards the product scope of the current anti-dumping measures concerning stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, and as regards newcomer review requests, and providing for the possibility of repayment or remission of duties in certain cases (OJ L 226, 31.7.2014, p. 16).’,





read:







‘(*)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 830/2014 of 30 July 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 as regards the product scope of the current anti-dumping measures concerning stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof, and as regards newcomer review requests, and providing for the possibility of repayment or remission of duties in certain cases (OJ L 228, 31.7.2014, p. 16)’.
Case C-456/14: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Manuel Orrego Arias v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2001/40/EC — Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals — Article 3(1)(a) — Concept of ‘offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year’ — Decision on the expulsion of a third country national owing to a criminal conviction — Situation which is not covered by Directive 2001/40 — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, imprisonment, mutual recognition principle, removal








C_2015398EN.01000701.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/7





Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Manuel Orrego Arias v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real
(Case C-456/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals - Article 3(1)(a) - Concept of ‘offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year’ - Decision on the expulsion of a third country national owing to a criminal conviction - Situation which is not covered by Directive 2001/40 - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
(2015/C 398/08)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Manuel Orrego Arias

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) by decision of 4 September 2014 (Case C-456/14).


(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
Case C-125/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark — Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union — Geographical extent of the reputation)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, goodwill, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015354EN.01000701.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Iron & Smith kft v Unilever NV
(Case C-125/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Registration of a national trade mark identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark - Community trade mark having a reputation in the European Union - Geographical extent of the reputation))
(2015/C 354/07)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Iron & Smith kft

Defendant: Unilever NV

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof.










2)


If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future.






(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7691 — Apollo/OMG) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, electricity storage device, investment company, magnetic medium, merger control, optical medium








C_2015289EN.01000901.xml










3.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7691 — Apollo/OMG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 289/07)






1.


On 24 August 2015, 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 Apollo Management, L.P. (Apollo, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking OM Group, Inc. (OMG, USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Apollo: investment activities in various business sectors globally, including companies in the chemical business,
—   for OMG: manufacture of specialty chemicals for electronic and industrial applications, of batteries and accumulators, and of magnetic and optical data, globally.










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.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7691 — Apollo/OMG, 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’).
Case C-465/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical process, electrical energy, energy-generating product, environmental tax, iron and steel-working machinery, tax system








C_2015398EN.01001701.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
(Case C-465/15)
(2015/C 398/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Question referred

Is the third indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive (EC) No 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) to be interpreted with respect to the blast furnace process for the production of pig iron as meaning that electricity for the propulsion of the turbo blower is to be regarded as electricity which is used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction?


(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).
Case T-225/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark IDIRECT24 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, holding company, insurance company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015346EN.01002601.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/26





Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)
(Case T-225/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark IDIRECT24 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 346/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: iNET24 Holding AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2014 (Case R 1867/2013-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of word mark IDIRECT24.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders iNET24 Holding AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
Case T-254/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark NEW MAX — Earlier figurative Community trade mark MAX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015346EN.01002701.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/27





Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
(Case T-254/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark NEW MAX - Earlier figurative Community trade mark MAX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 346/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F.-P. Hirschel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 2035/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG and Warenhandelszentrum Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Warenhandelszentrum Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Case C-463/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) — Meaning of ‘supply of services’ — Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services — Chargeable event — Need for proof of the actual supply of services — Chargeability of the tax)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, consultancy, provision of services, tax collection, tax harmonisation








C_2015354EN.01001101.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-463/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services - Chargeable event - Need for proof of the actual supply of services - Chargeability of the tax))
(2015/C 354/13)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.










2.


As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services.






(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
Case C-526/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148(a) — Supply of goods — Definition — Exemption — Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas — Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, delivery, international waters, tax collection, tax exemption, vessel








C_2015354EN.01000501.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/5





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-526/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(a) - Supply of goods - Definition - Exemption - Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas - Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name))
(2015/C 354/04)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UAB ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for in that provision is not, in principle, applicable to supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning to intermediaries acting in their own name, even if, at the date on which the supply is made the ultimate use of the goods is known and duly established and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with the national legislation. However, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that exemption may apply if the transfer to those intermediaries of the ownership in the goods concerned under the procedures laid down by the applicable national law took place at the earliest at the same time when the operators of vessels used for navigation on the high seas were actually entitled to dispose of those goods as if they were the owners, a matter which is for the national court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7679 — Evo Payments International/Raiffeisen Bank Polska/Raiffeisenbank/JVS) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electronic money, financial services, merger control








C_2015289EN.01000102.xml










3.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7679 — Evo Payments International/Raiffeisen Bank Polska/Raiffeisenbank/JVS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 289/02)
On 27 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7679. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.