do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2016016EN.01000101.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/1





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

(2016/C 016/01)

Last publication


OJ C 7, 11.1.2016..

Past publications


OJ C 429, 21.12.2015


OJ C 414, 14.12.2015


OJ C 406, 7.12.2015


OJ C 398, 30.11.2015


OJ C 389, 23.11.2015


OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-28/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, holding company, subsidiary, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2016156EN.01002102.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-28/16)
(2016/C 156/30)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM)

Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


May a holding company which plays an active role in the management of certain affairs of its subsidiaries, or of the group of companies as a whole, but which does not pass on to its subsidiaries the cost of the services carried out in relation to its active holding activity or the corresponding VAT be regarded as a taxable person for the purpose of VAT in respect of those services?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used by it which are directly related to the taxed economic activity of some of its subsidiaries, and if so in what way?










3.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used which are in the interest of the group of companies as a whole, and if so in what way?










4.


Do the answers to be given to the above question differ if the active holding company bills its subsidiaries in respect of the abovementioned services as intermediary services, and if so to what extent?
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/50 of 18 January 2016 amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Mali, Sahel, democratisation, paramilitary force, peacekeeping




L_2016012EN.01004801.xml










19.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/48








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/50
of 18 January 2016
         
amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali), which is valid for 24 months from the launching of EUCAP Sahel Mali.












(2)


On 19 January 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/76 (2) amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP, which launched EUCAP Sahel Mali on 15 January 2015 and endowed it with a financial reference amount for the period until 14 January 2016.












(3)


Decision 2014/219/CFSP should be amended to provide for a financial reference amount for the period from 15 January 2016 to 14 January 2017,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2014/219/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 14, paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali between 15 January 2016 and 14 January 2017 shall be EUR 14 850 000’;










(2)


in Article 14, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union. Participation of natural and legal persons in the award of procurement contracts by EUCAP Sahel Mali shall be open without limitations. Moreover, no rule of origin for the goods purchased by EUCAP Sahel Mali shall apply. Subject to the Commission's approval, EUCAP Sahel Mali may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, the host State, participating third States and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUCAP Sahel Mali.’.







Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 15 January 2016.




Done at Brussels, 18 January 2016.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/76 of 19 January 2015 launching the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) and amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP (OJ L 13, 20.1.2015, p. 5).
Case T-19/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — Advanced Drainage Systems v OHIM (THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS)
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water management








C_2016098EN.01005501.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/55





Action brought on 18 January 2016 — Advanced Drainage Systems v OHIM (THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS)
(Case T-19/16)
(2016/C 098/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: C. Sleep, Solicitor)

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 ‘THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 13 405 188

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1501/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


overturn the decision and allow the application to proceed to registration.










—


in the alternative, allow this appeal and overturn the Decision and remit the application back to the Examination division;










—


grant an award of costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-25/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Internet site, designs and models, goods and services, jurisdiction, residence








C_2016145EN.01001601.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.
(Case C-25/16)
(2016/C 145/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nintendo Co. Ltd

Defendants: BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.

Questions referred







1.


In connection with a trial to enforce claims under a Community design, can the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction with respect to a defendant is based solely on Article 79(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (2) on the basis that this defendant, which is domiciled in another Member State, supplied the defendant domiciled in the pertinent Member State with goods that may infringe intellectual property rights, adopt measures against the first mentioned defendant that are applicable throughout the EU and extend beyond the supply relationships on which jurisdiction is based?










2.


Is Regulation No 6/2002, particularly Article 20(1)(c), to be interpreted as meaning that a third party may depict a Community design for commercial purposes if it intends to sell accessory items for the right holder’s goods corresponding to the Community design? If so, what criteria apply to this?










3.


For the purposes of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, (3) how is the place ‘in which the act of infringement was committed’ to be determined in cases in which the infringer






a)


offers goods that infringe a Community design on a website and that website is also directed at Member States other than the one in which the person damaged by the infringement is domiciled, and/or










b)


has goods that infringe a Community design shipped to a Member State other than the one in which it is domiciled?




Is Article 15(a) and (g) of Regulation No 864/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that the law determined in this manner is also applicable to participatory acts of other persons?






(1)  
            OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.
Case C-610/14: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 18 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative transparency, consumer credit, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract








C_2016136EN.01002202.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/22





Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 18 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.
(Case C-610/14) (1)

(2016/C 136/28)
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case T-746/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2016 — Biofa v Commission (Interim measures — Plant protection product — Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, confidentiality, data protection, equal treatment, intellectual property, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, principle of subsidiarity, trade information








C_2016090EN.01001701.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/17





Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2016 — Biofa v Commission
(Case T-746/15 R)
((Interim measures - Plant protection product - Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
(2016/C 090/24)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Biofa AG (Münsingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Stallberg and S. Knoblich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 301, p. 42).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-24/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of jurisdiction, designs and models, establishment, law of obligations, territorial jurisdiction








C_2016145EN.01001501.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.
(Case C-24/16)
(2016/C 145/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nintendo Co. Ltd

Defendants: BigBen Interactive GmbH, BigBen Interactive S.A.

Questions referred







1.


In connection with a trial to enforce claims under a Community design, can the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction with respect to a defendant is based solely on Article 79(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (2) on the basis that this defendant, which is domiciled in another Member State, supplied the defendant domiciled in the pertinent Member State with goods that may infringe intellectual property rights, adopt measures against the first mentioned defendant that are applicable throughout the EU and extend beyond the supply relationships on which jurisdiction is based?










2.


Is Regulation No 6/2002, particularly Article 20(1)(c), to be interpreted as meaning that a third party may depict a Community design for commercial purposes if it intends to sell accessory items for the right holder’s goods corresponding to the Community design? If so, what criteria apply to this?










3.


For the purposes of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, (3) how is the place ‘in which the act of infringement was committed’ to be determined in cases in which the infringer






a)


offers goods that infringe a Community design on a website and that website is also directed at Member States other than the one in which the person damaged by the infringement is domiciled, and/or










b)


has goods that infringe a Community design shipped to a Member State other than the one in which it is domiciled?








Is Article 15(a) and (g) of Regulation No 864/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that the law determined in this manner is also applicable to participatory acts of other persons?


(1)  
            OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.
Case T-18/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — DMC v OHIM — Etike’ International (De Giusti Orgoglio)
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01002601.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/26





Action brought on 18 January 2016 — DMC v OHIM — Etike’ International (De Giusti Orgoglio)
(Case T-18/16)
(2016/C 090/35)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etike’ International Srl (Baronissi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘De Giusti Orgoglio’ — Application for registration No 9 499 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition procedure

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1764/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs;










—


order the production of the files relating to the opposition proceedings No B 001757973 and Case R 1764/2013-5.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-30/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, infringement of EU law








C_2016090EN.01001201.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/12





Action brought on 18 January 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-30/16)
(2016/C 090/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/126/EC, (1) since it has not fully transposed Article 4(1) and (3)(b), (4)(d), (f) and (h), Article 6(2) and Article 7(2)(b) of that directive;










—


order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The relevant provisions were to be adopted and published not later than 19 January 2011 and applied as from 19 January 2013.


(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/45 of 18 January 2016 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Prekmurska gibanica (TSG)]
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, confectionery product, consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2016012EN.01002701.xml










19.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/27








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/45
of 18 January 2016
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Prekmurska gibanica (TSG)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Slovenia's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the traditional speciality guaranteed ‘Prekmurska gibanica’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 172/2010 (2), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/176 (3).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) as required by Article 50(2)(b) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Prekmurska gibanica’ (TSG) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 2016.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 172/2010 of 1 March 2010 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Prekmurska gibanica (TSG)] (OJ L 51, 2.3.2010, p. 11).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/176 of 5 February 2015 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Prekmurska gibanica (TSG)] (OJ L 30, 6.2.2015, p. 16).

(4)  
            OJ C 235, 18.7.2015, p. 16.
Case C-29/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA
Date: 2016-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, civil proceedings, expert's report ordered by a court, proof








C_2016136EN.01001001.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA
(Case C-29/16)
(2016/C 136/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stralsund

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HanseYachts AG

Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

Question referred

Where the procedural law of a Member State provides for independent proceedings for the taking of evidence in which, by order of the court, an expert report is obtained (in this case the ‘expertise judiciaire’ in French law), and where such independent proceedings for the taking of evidence are conducted in that Member State and an action based on the findings of those independent proceedings is subsequently brought in the same Member State between the same parties:
In that case, is the document by which the independent proceedings for the taking of evidence were instituted a ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? (1) Or is it only the document by which the action is brought that is to be regarded as being the ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).