do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-580/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Johannes Van der Weegen, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, provision of services, tax on income








C_2016038EN.01002901.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Johannes Van der Weegen, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat
(Case C-580/15)
(2016/C 038/41)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Johannes Van der Weegen, Anna Pot

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 21(5) of the 1992 Belgian Income Tax Code (WIB 1992), as amended by Article 170 of the Law of 25 April 2014 laying down various provisions, infringe the provisions of Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, inasmuch as the provision in question, although applicable without distinction to domestic and foreign service providers, requires compliance with conditions similar to those included in Article [2] of the Royal Decree implementing the 1992 Income Tax Code (KB/WIB 1992) which are de facto specific to the Belgian market and consequently amount to a serious obstacle to foreign service providers offering their services in Belgium?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 9 November 2015 in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State (Case E-28/15)
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, family migration, foreign national, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, residence permit, third country








C_2016480EN.01000601.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/6





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 9 November 2015 in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State
(Case E-28/15)
(2016/C 480/07)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 November 2015 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 November 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State on the following question:
Does Article 7(l)(b) cf. Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC confer derived rights of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of an EEA national who, upon returning from another EEA State, is residing in the EEA State in which the EEA national is a citizen?
Case T-621/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch)
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016016EN.01004401.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/44





Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch)
(Case T-621/15)
(2016/C 016/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Tractel Greifzug GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and C. Maierhöfer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd (Wuxi, China)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a motorised rope winch) — Community trade mark No 7 033 061

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1658/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-622/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, chemical product, diesel fuel, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01003301.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/33





Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)
(Case T-622/15)
(2016/C 007/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: N. Weber and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘EXHAUST-GARD’ — Application for registration No 11 747 409

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2015 in Case R 196/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-620/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016007EN.01003201.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/32





Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)
(Case T-620/15)
(2016/C 007/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Orthema Service GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gehen wie auf Wolken’ — Application for registration No 13 121 868

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 404/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-578/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by Mansour Dairek Attoumi against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-278/14 Dairek Attoumi v OHIM-Diesel
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, leather








C_2016251EN.01000301.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/3





Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by Mansour Dairek Attoumi against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-278/14 Dairek Attoumi v OHIM-Diesel

(Case C-578/15 P)
(2016/C 251/03)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Diesel, S.P.A.
By order of 26 May 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Mansour Dairek Attoumi to pay the costs.
Case C-573/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, oxygen, tax harmonisation, tax relief, therapeutics








C_2016038EN.01002701.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA
(Case C-573/15)
(2016/C 038/39)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: État belge

Respondent: Oxycure Belgium SA

Question referred

Does Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Annex III, points 3 et 4 of the VAT Directive, having regard to, in particular, the principle of neutrality, preclude a national provision which prescribes a reduced rate of VAT for oxygen treatment by means of oxygen cylinders, whereas oxygen treatment by means of an oxygen concentrator is subject to the standard rate of VAT?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015371EN.01000101.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 371/01)

Last publication


OJ C 363, 3.11.2015


Past publications


OJ C 354, 26.10.2015


OJ C 346, 19.10.2015


OJ C 337, 12.10.2015


OJ C 328, 5.10.2015


OJ C 320, 28.9.2015


OJ C 311, 21.9.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-576/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 November 2015 — ЕТ ‘Maya Marinova’ v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2015-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, derogation from EU law, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, tax evasion, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, taxpayer








C_2016027EN.01001302.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 November 2015 — ЕТ ‘Maya Marinova’ v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-576/15)
(2016/C 027/17)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: ET ‘Maya Marinova’

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 273, Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1) and Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, taken together, having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is to be entitled to treat the actual absence of goods which were transferred to a taxable person by way of taxable supplies as subsequent taxable supplies of those goods for consideration by that taxable person, without the recipient of those goods being identified, where the aim is to prevent VAT evasion?










2.


Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is to be entitled to treat the failure by a taxable person to record tax-relevant documents relating to taxable supplies received in the manner described above, where this serves the same aim?










3.


Must Article 273, Article 73 and Article 80 of Directive 2006/112/EC, taken together, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that Member States are to be entitled, on the basis of national provisions which do not serve to transpose the VAT Directive, to determine taxable amounts for supplies of goods by a taxable person in a way which diverges from the general rule provided for in Article 73 of the VAT Directive and the exceptions expressly provided for in Article 80 of that directive, where the aim is, first, to prevent VAT evasion and, secondly, to determine a taxable amount for the transactions concerned that is a reliable as possible?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).