do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-325/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ — Distribution of television programmes — Process known as ‘direct injection’)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual programme, copyright, data transmission, information society, television








C_2016016EN.01001101.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/11





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)
(Case C-325/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ - Distribution of television programmes - Process known as ‘direct injection’))
(2016/C 016/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SBS Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of communication to the public, within the meaning of that provision, when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those signals being accessible to the public during, and as a result of that transmission, those distributors then sending those signals to their respective subscribers so that they may watch those programmes, unless the intervention of the distributors in question is just a technical means, which it is for the national court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Case C-611/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01000801.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/8





Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

(Case C-611/15 P)
(2016/C 314/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal SA (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Cosmética Cabinas, S.L.
By order of 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered L’Oréal SA to bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7826 — Bertelsmann/Prinovis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015385EN.01001601.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7826 — Bertelsmann/Prinovis)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 385/07)






1.


On 12 November 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 Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA (‘Bertelsmann’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings Prinovis Ltd & Co. KG and Prinovis Ltd (both Germany, together ‘Prinovis’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Bertelsmann: television, radio, book publishing, newspapers and magazines, music and other media and communication services,
—   Prinovis: high-volume illustration printing and related services.










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 the 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 this 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7826 — Bertelsmann/Prinovis, 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 F-33/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative — No new representative appointed — Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, lawyer, reassignment, servant (EU)








C_2016016EN.01005201.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/52





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-33/14)
((Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative - No new representative appointed - Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 016/61)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: Z, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request of 20 January 2013 for payment of the sum of EUR 700 000 in respect of compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred as a result of the decision to reassign the applicant to Brussels.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-33/14 Marcuccio v Commission.










2.


Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs.
Case C-632/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Income tax — Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source — Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances — Justification — Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, free movement of workers, tax on income, tax relief, tax system








C_2016016EN.01000401.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/4





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen
(Case C-632/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source - Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances - Justification - Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions))
(2016/C 016/04)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

Operative part of the judgment

In matters of taxation of income, the refusal to grant non-resident taxpayers, who obtain the majority of their income from the source State and who have opted for the taxation at source regime, the same personal deductions as those granted to resident taxpayers under the ordinary taxation regime does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 21 TFEU where the non-resident taxpayers are not subject to an overall tax burden greater than that placed on resident taxpayers and on persons in a similar situation whose circumstances are comparable to those of non-resident taxpayers.


(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norwegian Sea, Sweden, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015385EN.01001402.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/14





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 385/05)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


5.10.2015




Duration


5.10-31.12.2015




Member State


Sweden




Stock or Group of stocks


PRA/04-N.




Species


Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis)




Zone


Norwegian waters south of 62° N




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


56/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case F-37/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — van der Spree v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Termination of service — Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary — Applicant’s change of residence — Residence of the applicant’s daughter — Proof)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, occupational migration, residence, staff regulations (EU), termination of employment








C_2016007EN.01003601.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/36





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — van der Spree v Commission
(Case F-37/15) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Termination of service - Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary - Applicant’s change of residence - Residence of the applicant’s daughter - Proof))
(2016/C 007/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Daniel van der Spree (Eischoll, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to be paid double the resettlement allowance following his relocation to Switzerland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that Mr van der Spree is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 26.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015385EN.01000201.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 November 2015
(2015/C 385/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0666




JPY


Japanese yen


131,65




DKK


Danish krone


7,4608




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70090




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3019




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0838




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2335




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,029




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,94




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2540




RON


Romanian leu


4,4467




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0550




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5028




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4223




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2669




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6505




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5185




KRW


South Korean won


1 247,90




ZAR


South African rand


15,1537




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8054




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6215




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 746,47




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6594




PHP


Philippine peso


50,341




RUB


Russian rouble


69,3696




THB


Thai baht


38,392




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0563




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8707




INR


Indian rupee


70,6304






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-107/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment entitlements scheme — National reserve — Allocation criteria — Risk to the Fund — Cross compliance)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, financial control, single payment scheme








C_2016016EN.01002901.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/29





Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-107/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - National reserve - Allocation criteria - Risk to the Fund - Cross compliance))
(2016/C 016/35)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by M. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81), in so far as the Hellenic Republic is concerned.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the allocation of entitlements from the national reserve and in so far as the European Commission applied to the Hellenic Republic a financial correction in respect of 2008 relating to cross-compliance;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7759 — OMERS/AIMCo/ERM) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2015385EN.01001501.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7759 — OMERS/AIMCo/ERM)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 385/06)






1.


On 12 November 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 undertakings Alberta Investment Management Corporation on behalf of certain of its clients (Canada, ‘AIMCo’), and OCP Investment Corporation, belonging to the OMERS Group (Canada, ‘OMERS’), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking ERM Worldwide Group Limited (Canada, ‘ERM’) by way of an option agreement.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


OMERS is the administrator of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Primary Pension Plan and trustee of the pension funds. It manages a diversified global portfolio of stocks and bonds as well as real estate, private equity and infrastructure investments.










—


AIMCo is one of Canada’s largest and most diversified institutional investment fund managers, investing globally on behalf of its clients, various pension, endowment and government funds in the Province of Alberta.










—


ERM is a global provider of environmental, health, safety, risk and social (‘EHS’) consulting services.














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 the 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 this 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7759 — OMERS/AIMCo/ERM, 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 C-241/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National of a Member State of the European Union — Frontier workers — Income tax — Allocation of fiscal sovereignty — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Nationality)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Switzerland, agreement (EU), bilateral agreement, discrimination on the basis of nationality, double taxation, equal treatment, frontier worker, nationality, tax on income








C_2016016EN.01001001.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach
(Case C-241/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - National of a Member State of the European Union - Frontier workers - Income tax - Allocation of fiscal sovereignty - Connecting factor for tax purposes - Nationality))
(2016/C 016/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Roman Bukovansky

Defendant: Finanzamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment, set out in Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and in Article 9 of Annex I to that agreement, must be interpreted as not precluding a bilateral agreement on double taxation, such as the Agreement of 11 August 1971 between the Swiss Confederation and the Federal Republic of Germany, as amended by the revising Protocol of 12 March 2002, under which the power to tax the employment income of a German taxpayer who does not have Swiss nationality, although he has transferred his residence from Germany to Switzerland, whilst retaining his place of employment in the first of those States, is vested in the State in which that income originates, namely the Federal Republic of Germany, whereas the power to tax the employment income of a Swiss national who is in an analogous situation is vested in the new State of residence, in this case the Swiss Confederation.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.