do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-358/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 — Legal base — Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Part of the profits of a State company paid to the Iranian State)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, bank, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, public sector, trade restriction








C_2016243EN.01001401.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/14





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council of the European Union
(Case C-358/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal base - Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Part of the profits of a State company paid to the Iranian State))
(2016/C 243/13)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Bank of Industry and Mine (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Bank of Industry and Mine and the Council of the European Union to each pay their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-844/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001602.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/16





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)
(Case T-844/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 (Case R 648/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7989 — Griffin/LVS II Lux XX/Redefine/Echo prime JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2016171EN.01000102.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7989 — Griffin/LVS II Lux XX/Redefine/Echo prime JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 171/02)
On 28 April 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7989. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, accountant, administrator, audit, competition (EU)








C_2016171EN.01000701.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/7





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2016/C 171/08)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AD/322/16 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT (AD 5/AD 7)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 171 A of 12 May 2016.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-468/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission (Financial support — Research — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development 2007-2013 — eDIGIREGION project — Commission decision refusing participation of an undertaking — Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability — Non-material damage — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, damages, financial aid, indemnification








C_2016232EN.01001001.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/10





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission
(Case T-468/14) (1)

((Financial support - Research - Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development 2007-2013 - eDIGIREGION project - Commission decision refusing participation of an undertaking - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Non-material damage - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
(2016/C 232/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented initially by R. Muñiz García, and subsequently by J. Marín López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014 rejecting the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project under Article 263 TFEU, and, second, an action for damages, under Article 268 TFEU, for harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision of EUR 3 055 000 plus interest accrued and, in the alternative, the appointment of an expert to evaluate the harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Holistic Innovation Institute SLU to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020 (Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1225)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, action programme, financial aid, invitation to tender, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2016171EN.01000601.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/6





Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020
(Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1225)
(2016/C 171/07)
The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching four calls for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the work programme for 2016 in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.
Proposals are invited for the following four calls:






 


CEF-TC-2016-2: eDelivery










 


CEF-TC-2016-2: eIdentification & eSignature










 


CEF-TC-2016-2: European e-Justice Portal










 


CEF-TC-2016-2: Public Open Data




The total indicative budget available for proposals selected under these calls is EUR 10,5 million.
The deadline for the submission of proposals is 15 September 2016.
The respective calls documentation is available on the CEF Telecom website: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/apply-funding/2016-cef-telecom-calls-proposals
Case C-520/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Borsele v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Borsele (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2(1)(c) and 9(1) — Taxable persons — Economic activities — Definition — Transport of schoolchildren)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of passengers, economic activity, provision of services, regional and local authorities, school transport








C_2016243EN.01001001.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/10





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Borsele v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Borsele
(Case C-520/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c) and 9(1) - Taxable persons - Economic activities - Definition - Transport of schoolchildren))
(2016/C 243/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Gemeente Borsele

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a regional or local authority which provides a service for the transport of schoolchildren under conditions such as those described in the main proceedings does not carry out an economic activity and is not therefore a taxable person.


(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 12 May 2016 in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Póst- og fjarskiptastofnun (Case E-6/16)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, Internet address, browser, network server, service, telephone, transmission network








C_2017066EN.01003201.xml










2.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/32





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 12 May 2016 in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Póst- og fjarskiptastofnun
(Case E-6/16)
(2017/C 66/12)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 May 2016 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Póst- og fjarskiptastofnun on the following questions:






1.


Can point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘electronic communications network’ covers the conveyance of signals that are written as an SMS message on users’ end device connected via a web browser to the ‘My Pages’ web server in a telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, via the public internet and to the PHP script software on the same telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, which receives the signals, processes them and conveys them in turn from the telecommunications undertaking’s web domain to an SMS server (SMSC) in its communications system, which then sends them on over a telephone network to the recipient telephone number?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is point (c) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC to be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘electronic communications service’ covers a service that consists of the conveyance of signals which takes place on a communications network as described in Question 1 when i) a fee is collected for such a service, and ii) when no fee is collected for such a service?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, is point (d) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC to be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘public communications network’ covers the electronic communications service described in Question 2, which is provided on an electronic communications network as described in Question 1, irrespective of whether that service is i) available to the public, or ii) available only to all subscribers of the telecommunication undertaking?
Case C-272/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Tayto Group Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2016 in Case T-816/14: Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017078EN.01000601.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/6





Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Tayto Group Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2016 in Case T-816/14: Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)
(Case C-272/16 P)
(2017/C 078/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Tayto Group Ltd (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
By order of 27 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-32/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001701.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/17





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)
(Case T-32/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2014 (Case R 647/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, air transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2016171EN.01000301.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/3





Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 171/04)






Member State


Czech Republic




Concerned routes


Ostrava — Amsterdam
Ostrava — Helsinki




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1 October 2016




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained


For further information please contact:





Moravskoslezský kraj — Krajský úřad




28. října 117




702 18 Ostrava




CZECH REPUBLIC




Tel. +420 595622716




Fax +420 595622226




Email: martin.vymetal@msk.cz




Internet: www.msk.cz




or





CÍSAŘ, ČEŠKA, SMUTNÝ s.r.o., advokátní kancelář




Hvězdova 1716/2b




140 00 Praha 4




CZECH REPUBLIC




Tel. +420 224827884




Fax +420 224827879




Email: sniehotta@akccs.cz




Internet: www.akccs.cz
Case C-262/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2016 – Shields & Sons Partnership v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, farmer, flat-rate tax, tax exemption, tax harmonisation








C_2016260EN.01003001.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2016 – Shields & Sons Partnership v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
(Case C-262/16)
(2016/C 260/38)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Shields & Sons Partnership

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred







1.


With regard to the common flat-rate scheme for farmers which is established by Chapter 2 of Title XII of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC (1), is Article 296(2) to be interpreted as providing an exhaustive regime as to when a Member State is able to exclude a farmer from the common agricultural flat-rate scheme? In particular:






1.1.


Is a Member State only able to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers pursuant to Article 296(2)?










1.2.


Is a Member State also able to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers using Article 299?










1.3.


Does the principle of fiscal neutrality give a Member State a right to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers?










1.4.


Do Member States have an entitlement to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers on any other grounds?














2.


How is the term ‘categories of farmers’ in Article 296(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC to be interpreted? In particular:






2.1.


Must a relevant category of farmers be capable of being identified by reference to objective characteristics?










2.2.


Can a relevant category of farmers be capable of being identified by reference to economic considerations?










2.3.


What level of precision is required in identifying a category of farmers which a Member State has purported to exclude?










2.4.


Does it entitle a Member State to treat as a relevant category ‘farmers who are found to be recovering substantially more as members of the flat-rate scheme than they would if they were registered for VAT’?










(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1
Case T-749/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AROMA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001401.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/14





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA)
(Case T-749/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AROMA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Peter Chung-Yuan Chang (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Crawcour and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH, formerly BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosh, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Peter Chung-Yuan Chang and BSH Hausgeräte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO and BSH Hausgeräte GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Peter Chung-Yuan Chang.






(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.