do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/292 of 19 February 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Alheira de Mirandela (PGI))
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Northern Portugal, Portugal, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation, smoked product








L_2016055EN.01000301.xml










2.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/292
of 19 February 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Alheira de Mirandela (PGI))


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 Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Alheira de Mirandela’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Alheira de Mirandela’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Alheira de Mirandela’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 1.2 Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) of Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 19 February 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  
            OJ C 333, 9.10.2015, p. 8.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-99/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon (France) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, computer network, freedom to provide services, lawyer, professional society, right of establishment, self-employed person








C_2016165EN.01000701.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon (France) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
(Case C-99/16)
(2016/C 165/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue

Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

Question referred

Is the refusal to issue a secure router for accessing the Private Virtual Network for Lawyers (RPVA) to a lawyer duly registered at the Bar of a Member State in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services contrary to Article 4 of Directive 77/249/EC, (1) on the basis that it constitutes a discriminatory measure which could impede the practice of his profession as a free provider of services?


(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).
Case C-101/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 February 2016 — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax authorities, tax harmonisation, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2016175EN.01000901.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 February 2016 — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud
(Case C-101/16)
(2016/C 175/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC Paper Consult SRL

Respondents: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 2006/112/EC (1) preclude national rules under which a taxable person is denied the right to deduct VAT on the grounds that the person upstream, which issued the invoice in which the expenditure and VAT are indicated, has been declared inactive by the tax authorities?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Directive 2006/112/EC preclude national rules under which it is sufficient to display the list of registered inactive taxpayers at the headquarters of the Agenției Națională de Administrare Fiscală (National Agency for Fiscal Administration) and to publish that list on the website of that agency, in the section Public information — Information relating to economic operators, in order that the right to deduct VAT in the circumstances described in the first question may be refused?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case F-11/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: assistant, interest, pay, pay scale, promotion, reassignment








C_2016145EN.01004101.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/41






Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-11/16)
(2016/C 145/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusuing to re-grade the applicant on her transfer to the European Parliament and to reconstruct her career and an order that the Commission pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration paid to her and that which ought to be paid to her after the reconstruction of her career, together with interest for late payment.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 April 2015 refusing to re-grade the applicant on her transfer and to review her career at the European Commission from 16 June 2001 to 31 December 2010, despite the promotion from grade C4 (now AST 3) to grade C3 (now AST 4) granted to her by the European Parliament on 7 August 2009 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2000;










—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 9 November 2015 rejecting the claim made by the applicant on 17 July 2015;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration which it paid to her and the remuneration which ought to be paid to her following the reconstruction of her career in grade and step, together with interest for late payment;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-30/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 February 2016 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark INFINITY — Earlier Community word mark INFINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2016111EN.01002301.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/23





Judgment of the General Court of 19 February 2016 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)
(Case T-30/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark INFINITY - Earlier Community word mark INFINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 111/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (Delta, Canada) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd (Changhua, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 (Case R 2308/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd, and Infinite Cycle Works Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Infinite Cycle Works Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 19 February 2016 in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet (Case E-3/16)
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, joint venture, restriction on competition, subcontracting, taxi, tendering








C_2017026EN.01001601.xml










26.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/16





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 19 February 2016 in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet
(Case E-3/16)
(2017/C 26/07)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 February 2016 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 February 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet on the following questions:






1.


What is the legal test when determining whether an agreement between undertakings has a competition-restricting object within the meaning of Article 53 EEA?






a)


In this context, is it sufficient in order to be able to categorise a form of conduct as an infringement by object pursuant to Article 53 EEA, that the cooperation is capable of restricting competition?














2.


What is the legal significance for the consideration of whether a form of conduct constitutes an infringement by object, that such cooperation took place openly vis-à-vis the procuring authority?










3.


What legal criteria must in particular be emphasised when considering whether cooperation that takes the form of two competing companies submitting a joint tender through a joint venture, and where the two undertakings are to be subcontractors to the joint venture, should be deemed to constitute an infringement by object?
Case C-104/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2015 in Case T-512/12 Polisario Front v Council
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Morocco, Western Sahara, agreement (EU), exploitation of resources, natural resources








C_2016111EN.01001701.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/17





Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2015 in Case T-512/12 Polisario Front v Council
(Case C-104/16 P)
(2016/C 111/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Popular Front for the liberation of Saguia-el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front), European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-512/12;










—


give final judgment in the matters which are the subject of the present appeal by dismissing the action for annulment brought by the Polisario Front (the ‘applicant’); and










—


order the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Council raises several pleas alleging errors of law.
First, the Council takes the view that the General Court has erred in law by holding that the applicant had the capacity to bring proceedings before the Courts of the European Union.
Second, it submits that the General Court erred in law by holding that the applicant was direct and individually concerned by the decision annulled.
Third, it criticises the General Court for having erred in law by basing the annulment on a plea which had not been raised by the applicant and with regard to which the Council was unable to express its views.
Fourth, the Council complains that the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council was required to examine the possible impact of the production activities concerning the products covered by the agreement concluded by the decision annulled on the human rights of the population of Western Sahara before adopting the decision annulled.
Fifth, the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council was required to examine whether there was evidence, under the agreement concluded by that decision, of the exploitation of the natural resources of the territory of Western Sahara under Moroccan control which may be carried out to the detriment of its inhabitants and may infringe their fundamental rights, before adopting the decision annulled.
Finally, the Council claims that the General Court erred in law by partially annulling the contested decision which had the effect of altering its substance.
Case C-102/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, driving period, humanisation of work, legality, road transport, vehicle, weekly rest period








C_2016165EN.01000801.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-102/16)
(2016/C 165/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 be interpreted as meaning that the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation may not be spent inside the vehicle?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation No 561/2006, read in conjunction with Article 19 of the same regulation, then breach the principle of legality in criminal proceedings as expressed in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) in so far as the abovementioned provisions of Regulation No 561/2006 do not expressly provide for the prohibition on spending the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation inside the vehicle?










3.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Regulation No 561/2006 then permit Member States to lay down a prohibition in their national law on spending the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation inside a vehicle?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1


(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 188, 18.7.2009)
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, countervailing charge, export subsidy, import policy, import restriction, third country








L_2016044EN.01002001.xml










19.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 44/20







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 18 July 2009
)


On page 110, Article 26(1), second sentence:
for:

               ‘In the absence of a proper and timely reply a verification visit may not be carried out.’,
read:

               ‘In the absence of a proper and timely reply, the Commission may choose not to carry out a verification visit.’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7923 — LKQ Corporation/Rhiag Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2016064EN.01000801.xml










19.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7923 — LKQ Corporation/Rhiag Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 64/06)






1.


On 12 February 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which LKQ Italia S.r.l. (Italy), controlled by LKQ Corporation (‘LKQ’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Rhiag Group (‘Rhiag’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for LKQ: distribution of car parts, including replacement parts, components and systems used in the repair and maintenance of passenger and light commercial vehicles and to a limited extent for the heavy commercial vehicles, as well as specialty vehicle products and accessories,
—   for Rhiag: distribution of car parts used in the repair and maintenance of passenger and light commercial vehicles (under 6 tonnes) and heavy commercial vehicles (above 6 tonnes).










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 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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7923 — LKQ Corporation/Rhiag Group, 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.
Commission communication concerning the application to register the name ‘Knack d’Alsace’ as a protected geographical indication pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Alsace, France, beef, consumer information, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, meat product, pigmeat, product designation, quality control of agricultural products








C_2016064EN.01000901.xml










19.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/9





Commission communication concerning the application to register the name ‘Knack d’Alsace’ as a protected geographical indication pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs
(2016/C 64/07)
France’s application to register the name ‘Knack d’Alsace’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C 222, 7.7.2015, p. 5).
The Order of 16 December 2015, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic of 19 December 2015, repeals the Order of 15 May 2014 concerning the approval of the specification for the name ‘Knack d’Alsace’. Accordingly, on 23 December 2015, the French authorities notified the European Commission of their decision to withdraw the application to register the name ‘Knack d’Alsace’ as a protected geographical indication.
Case F-12/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Frontex
Date: 2016-02-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2016165EN.01002201.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/22





Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Frontex
(Case F-12/16)
(2016/C 165/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and for damages for the harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 in respect of the harm suffered in connection with the adoption of that decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.