do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-20/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Germany, basis of tax assessment, double taxation, frontier worker, health insurance, pension scheme, personal income tax, tax








C_2016118EN.01001001.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg
(Case C-20/16)
(2016/C 118/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) preclude a provision of German law according to which contributions to the French pension and health insurance fund paid by an employee living in Germany but working for the French civil service — in contrast to comparable contributions paid by an employee working in Germany to the German social security fund — do not reduce the income tax basis of assessment, if, under the Convention between Germany and France for the avoidance of double taxation, the salary may not be taxed in Germany and only increases the tax rate to be applied to other income?










2.


Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative even if, within the framework of the taxation of the salary by France, the insurance contributions in question — whether specifically or at a flat rate —






a)


are taken into account as reducing tax, or










b)


could have been taken into account in reducing tax, but were not the subject of a claim to that effect and therefore were not actually taken into account?
Case T-189/15: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Correspondence between the Dutch authorities and the Commission concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the EU budget, made on the basis of gross national income — Partial refusal of access — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, access to EU information, correspondence, infringement of EU law, personal data








C_2016098EN.01004401.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/44





Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission
(Case T-189/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence between the Dutch authorities and the Commission concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the EU budget, made on the basis of gross national income - Partial refusal of access - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 098/58)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: TMG Landelijke Media BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Menzo Willems (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: R.S. Le Poole and L. Broers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 February 2015 refusing, in part, to grant Mr Willems access to the documents relating to correspondence between the Commission and the Dutch authorities concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the European Union budget.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by TMG Landelijke Media BV and Mr Menzo Willems.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Case T-13/16: Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2016090EN.01002301.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/23





Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)
(Case T-13/16)
(2016/C 090/31)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Gauff’ — Community mark No 6 327 977

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 549/2015-1

Form of order

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; or
in the alternative, send the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 53, 56, 57, 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Regulation No 2868/95 as well as infringement of the right to be heard and failure to state reasons.
Case C-22/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, energy production, public sector, single market








C_2016118EN.01001102.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA
(Case C-22/16)
(2016/C 118/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendant: SC Hidroelectrica SA

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, is the holding by a Romanian publicly-funded company of shares in a joint (Romanian-Turkish) company equivalent to State aid subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU?
Does it constitute public funding selective in nature, and could it have an effect on trade between Member States of the European Union?










2.


Can it be held that such a shareholding by a publicly-owned electricity-producing company infringes the principle of separating transmission systems from transmission system operators established by Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) concerning rules adopted for the internal market in electricity?






(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7866 — Activision Blizzard/King) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: automatic game, economic concentration, interactivity, merger control








C_2016012EN.01000401.xml










15.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7866 — Activision Blizzard/King)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 12/03)






1.


On 8 January 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by Activision Blizzard Inc. (‘Activision Blizzard’, United States of America) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) sole control over King Digital Entertainment plc. (‘King’, Ireland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Activision Blizzard: development and publishing of interactive entertainment, including PC and console games;
—   for King: development and publishing of mobile games.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7866 — Activision Blizzard/King, 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’).
Corrigendum to 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) (OJ C 10, 13.1.2016)
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, toxic substance








C_2016012EN.01000701.xml










15.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/7





Corrigendum to 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)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 10 of 13 January 2016
)
(2016/C 12/06)
On page 3, first column of table:

for:


‘[add reference of decision]’,


read:


‘C(2015) 9812’;

on page 3, second column of table:

for:


‘[add date of decision]’,


read:


‘8.1.2016’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7724 — ASL/Arianespace) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, launch vehicle, merger control, military equipment, provision of services








C_2016012EN.01000501.xml










15.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7724 — ASL/Arianespace)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 12/04)






1.


On 8 January 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Airbus Safran Launchers (‘ASL’, France), the newly joint venture jointly controlled by Airbus Group S.E. (‘Airbus’, the Netherlands) and Safran SA (‘Safran’, France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Arianespace Participation SA and Arianespace SA (together, ‘Arianespace’, France), by way of purchase of the entire shareholding currently held by CNES in Arianespace.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ASL: development and production of launch vehicles in the civil and military launchers sectors, as well as satelllite sub-systems and equipment,
—   for Arianespace: provision of launch services to private and institutionnal satellite operators through the fleet of launchers developed by ESA.










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 number M.7724 — ASL/Arianespace, 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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016012EN.01000101.xml










15.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 January 2016
(2016/C 12/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0893




JPY


Japanese yen


128,26




DKK


Danish krone


7,4624




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75703




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2850




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0950




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6071




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,97




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3730




RON


Romanian leu


4,5348




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3025




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5695




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5647




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4775




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6903




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5670




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,77




ZAR


South African rand


18,0475




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1809




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6660




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 155,06




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7855




PHP


Philippine peso


52,076




RUB


Russian rouble


83,2007




THB


Thai baht


39,552




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3730




MXN


Mexican peso


19,5529




INR


Indian rupee


73,4516






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-306/15: Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Romania
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, packaging product, waste management








C_2016136EN.01002302.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/23





Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-306/15) (1)

(2016/C 136/30)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case T-564/14: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01006101.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/61





Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM
(Case T-564/14) (1)

(2016/C 098/78)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 360, 27.10.2014.
Case C-21/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, carriage of goods, goods and services, nationality of legal persons, principle of proportionality, residence, supply, tax exemption, tax system








C_2016118EN.01001101.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-21/16)
(2016/C 118/13)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 131 and 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted, in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods, as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to grant VAT exemption to a seller domiciled in that Member State on the ground that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, is not registered in the VIES (2) database nor is subject in that country to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, although he has, at the time of the transactions, a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, which has been used in the transaction invoices, and the cumulative material conditions for an intra-Community supply have been fulfilled, namely, that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the purchaser and the seller has established that these goods were dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, after that dispatch or transport, those goods physically left the Member State of departure and were delivered to a taxable purchaser or legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began?










2.


Does the principle of proportionality preclude an interpretation of Article 138(1) of Directive No 2006/112/EC to the effect that the benefit of the right to VAT exemption is to be denied in a situation where a seller, domiciled in a Member State, was aware that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, although holding a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, was not registered in the VIES database nor was subject to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, but was convinced that that purchaser would be retroactively registered as an intra-Community operator?






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

(2)  VAT Information Exchange System.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7822 — Dentsply/Sirona) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dental medicine, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016012EN.01000601.xml










15.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7822 — Dentsply/Sirona)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 12/05)






1.


On 7 January 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Dentsply International Inc. (‘Dentsply’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (‘Sirona’, United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Dentsply is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a broad range of consumable dental products for the professional dental market. Dentsply also manufactures and markets other consumable medical device products,










—


Sirona is a global manufacturer of technologically advanced dental equipment and is focused on developing, manufacturing, and marketing innovative solutions for dentists.














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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7822 — Dentsply/Sirona 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 T-12/16: Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU financing arrangements, agricultural expenditure, agricultural real estate, aid to agriculture, area of holding, common agricultural policy, legality, rural development








C_2016098EN.01005401.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/54





Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
(Case T-12/16)
(2016/C 098/69)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), in so far as it concerns the Republic of Slovenia, and particularly in so far as it relates to
the lack of a control procedure (or surveillance procedure) regarding land parcels created artificially, in relation to which a correction of the decoupled direct aids at issue was made amounting to EUR 42 615,90for the 2013 accounting year (claim year 2012), EUR 45 519,08for the 2014 accounting year (claim year 2013), and EUR 34 211,94for the 2015 accounting year (claim year 2014);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law regarding the checks on the land parcels, namely: a manifest error of assessment; an inadequate statement of reasons for the decision; and infringement of the principle of legality.
In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission incorrectly held that there is not yet an adequate system in Slovenia for checking the smallest eligible areas. In that regard, the applicant observes that the small land parcels in Slovenia are a consequence of the natural features and historical fragmentation of its agricultural structures. Furthermore, those areas were not created artificially in order to meet the requirements for obtaining aid from the support scheme. Lastly, during its examination, the Commission did not establish or prove any breach, since the areas in question meet all the requirements necessary to be defined as agricultural areas and land parcels.
Case C-204/15: Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Proceedings brought by Valsts ieņēmumu dienests; other party: SIA Latspas
Date: 2016-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, customs territory (EU), customs union, customs valuation, free circulation, import








C_2016136EN.01002301.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/23





Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Proceedings brought by Valsts ieņēmumu dienests; other party: SIA Latspas
(Case C-204/15) (1)

(2016/C 136/29)
Language of the case: Latvian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.