do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-40/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemption for insurance — Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ — Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, insurance company, insurance occupation, service, tax exemption








C_2016156EN.01001302.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.
(Case C-40/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemption for insurance - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer))
(2016/C 156/18)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided by a third party in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, do not fall within the exemption laid down by that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Case F-109/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, interest








C_2016156EN.01005601.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/56






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament
(Case F-109/15) (1)

(2016/C 156/78)
Language of the case: German
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 328, 5/10/2015, p. 36.
Case C-161/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision withdrawing residence authorisation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law — Plea based on public policy)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law, European citizenship, general legal principle, national law, public policy, residence permit, rights of the defence








C_2016156EN.01001801.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/18






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge
(Case C-161/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision withdrawing residence authorisation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law - Plea based on public policy))
(2016/C 156/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law is admissible only if that plea is based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, must be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfies the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.


(1)  
            OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Case C-99/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 13(1) — Audiovisual work — Infringing activity — Damages — Rules for calculation — Lump sum — Moral prejudice — Inclusion)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual industry, damages, indemnification, intellectual property








C_2016156EN.01001501.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/15






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA
(Case C-99/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13(1) - Audiovisual work - Infringing activity - Damages - Rules for calculation - Lump sum - Moral prejudice - Inclusion))
(2016/C 156/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Christian Liffers

Respondents: Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as permitting a party injured by an intellectual property infringement, who claims compensation for his material damage as calculated, in accordance with heading (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive, on the basis of the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due to him if the infringer had requested his authorisation to use that right, also to claim compensation for the moral prejudice that he has suffered, as provided for under heading (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive.


(1)  
            OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case T-106/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016175EN.01001801.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/18





Action brought on 17 March 2016 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)
(Case T-106/16)
(2016/C 175/21)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘ZIRO’ — EU trade mark application No 12 264 958

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 71/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-540/15: Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, energy use, sanction (EU)








C_2016200EN.01001601.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/16





Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-540/15) (1)

(2016/C 200/23)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Monaco, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2016101EN.01000501.xml










17.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/5





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2016/C 101/03)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: Monaco


Subject of commemoration
: The 150th anniversary of the foundation of Monte Carlo by Charles III


Description of the design
: The design shows CHARLES III within the background MONTE CARLO. At the top is the name of the issuing country ‘MONACO’ flanked by the mint mark and the mint master mark. At the bottom, in semi-circle from left to right is the inscription ‘1866 CHARLES III FONDE MONTE CARLO 2016’.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 


Date of issue
: 


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-112/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls — Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, animal feedingstuffs, approximation of laws, food inspection, foodstuff, in-service training, veterinary inspection








C_2016156EN.01001502.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/15






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen
(Case C-112/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls - Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries))
(2016/C 156/21)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S

Defendants: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(4)(a) and Annex VI, points (1) and (2), of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when they prescribe the fees charged to food sector establishments, from including the costs connected to the compulsory basic training of official auxiliaries.


(1)  
            OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
Reserve lists — Open competitions EPSO/AD/308/15 — EPSO/AD/309/15 — Doctors (AD 11)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), physician








CA2016101EN.01000101.xml










17.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 101/1





RESERVE LISTS (1)

OPEN COMPETITIONS EPSO/AD/308/15 — EPSO/AD/309/15 — DOCTORS (AD 11)
(2016/C 101 A/01)
 

EPSO/AD/308/15


Brussels site







BELGE


Bénédicte




CLAES


Petra




DE MEULDER


Elisabeth




DELBEKE


Isabelle




MALLAINA GARCIA


Raul




SAN JOSE


Ruth




SASSI


Sihem




SORIANO


Vicente




VALVERDE ALBACETE


Jose Antonio




ZAMUROVIC


Danica




This reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2018.

EPSO/AD/309/15


Luxembourg site







BRAUN-FISCHER


Angela




MADSEN (DE MUYNCK)


Sabine




VANMARSNILLE


Ludo




WERNER


Albrecht




This reserve list will be valid until 30 June 2019.

Ispra site







BIGDELI


Leyla




BRANCO MADEIRA


Ana Sofia




LEACH


Robert




LEANDRO


Esther




VALVERDE ALBACETE


Jose Antonio




This reserve list will be valid until 30 June 2019.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly have requested her/his name not be published.
Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, discriminatory price, dominant position, infringement of EU law, public sector








C_2016191EN.01001501.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
(Case C-159/16)
(2016/C 191/19)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)?










2.


Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses?










3.


May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?
Case C-252/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Revocation proceedings — Article 51(1)(a) — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016156EN.01002001.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/20






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.
(Case C-252/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Article 51(1)(a) - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75))
(2016/C 156/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Energy Brands, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AST/135/15 — Heads of Administration (AST 4) in EU delegations
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, Union delegation, competition (EU)








CA2016101EN.01000301.xml










17.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 101/3





RESERVE LIST
OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/135/15
HEADS OF ADMINISTRATION (AST 4) IN EU DELEGATIONS
(2016/C 101 A/02)
 






ARANA SANCHEZ


Juan




ARTIGAUT


Benoit




BOLNEVA MIHAYLOVA


Tanya




BOSMA


Jitze




BUSCOT


Sylvie




CLEMENSAT


Olivier




COSTACHE


Silviu




DALPANE


Davide




DURAN NAVARRO


Jaime




EFFTING


Franciscus Christianus Theodorus




FARAUS


Nicolas




GARCIA ALCAZAR


Alvaro




GLAVIND


Birgitte Sakstrup




GONZALEZ GUERRERO


Daniel




GUTIERREZ GARCIA


Diego Manuel




HARMSEN


Elisabeth Maria




HEUBERGER


Andreas




LANZUELA DE ALVARO


Javier




LAPPART-RAULSTON


Beatrice




LASECA


Iciar




MALBAŠIĆ


Damir




MARINO


Pascal




MARION


Emmanuelle




QUINTARD


Jerome




TOVAR BADT


Samira Adelaida




VAN DER BIJL


Dina Johanna




VAN DOORN


Marcel




VANDEPUT


Jan




VERSCHOOR


Jaco




WILLEMS


Roos




The reserve list will be valid until 30 June 2019.
Case T-817/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Combating avian influenza — Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU — Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 — Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals — Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion — Proportionality — Duty of care — Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, avian influenza, bird, health certificate, import (EU), import restriction, indemnification, principle of proportionality, veterinary inspection








C_2016156EN.01003801.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/38






Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission

(Case T-817/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Combating avian influenza - Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU - Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 - Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals - Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion - Proportionality - Duty of care - Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))
(2016/C 156/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), and Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants, from 1 January 2010, by reason of the adoption of the prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the European Union contained, first, in Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and, subsequently, in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH, Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG, Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche, Ms Rita Bürgel and Mr Norbert Kass to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.