do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-262/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH v Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8710 and Subheading 9305 91 00 — Note 3 to Section XVII and point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 — Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles — Military weapons — Classification of a turret system)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, combat vehicle, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading, vehicle parts








C_2016260EN.01000902.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/9





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH v Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien
(Case C-262/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8710 and Subheading 9305 91 00 - Note 3 to Section XVII and point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 - Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles - Military weapons - Classification of a turret system))
(2016/C 260/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

Respondent: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a turret system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was imported for the production of armoured fighting vehicles and was indeed used subsequently for that purpose, comes under heading 8710 of the Common Nomenclature if it is ‘principally’ intended for use on an armoured fighting vehicle, this being a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the turret system, without the end use to which it is put in the case at hand being determinant for the purpose of its classification. If that is not the case, that turret system must be classified, as a part or accessory of a ‘military weapon’, under subheading 9305 91 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-331/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01003001.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/30





Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY)
(Case T-331/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2015 (Case R 954/2014 2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE SNACK COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bimbo, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016187EN.01000201.xml










26.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 May 2016
(2016/C 187/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1146 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75925 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2651 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1049 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2945 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,028 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,29 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4205 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5091 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2884 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5475 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4608 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6534 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6488 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5372 




KRW


South Korean won


1 317,16 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4749 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3136 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4968 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 203,70 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5711 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,109 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2362 




THB


Thai baht


39,768 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9681 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5022 




INR


Indian rupee


75,1000 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-244/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Inheritance tax — Legislation of a Member State providing for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence on condition that the heir is permanently resident in that Member State — Restriction — Justification)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, European Economic Area, capital transfer tax, free movement of capital, residence, tax exemption








C_2016260EN.01000901.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/9





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-244/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Inheritance tax - Legislation of a Member State providing for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence on condition that the heir is permanently resident in that Member State - Restriction - Justification))
(2016/C 260/11)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou and V. Karrá, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by enacting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for an exemption from inheritance tax relating to the primary residence, which applies solely to nationals of EU Member States who are resident in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-110/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — International Management Group v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation — Access refused — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Category of documents)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, access to EU information, data protection








C_2016251EN.01002701.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/27





Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — International Management Group v Commission
(Case T-110/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation - Access refused - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Category of documents))
(2016/C 251/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by M. Burgstaller, Solicitor, and E. Wright, Barrister, and subsequently by A. Tymen and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S) (2015) 4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the investigation concerning it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders International Management Group to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-300/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 21 and 45 TFEU — Freedom of movement and of residence of persons and workers — Income tax — Retirement pension — Pensioners’ tax credit — Conditions for granting — Possession of a tax deduction form issued by national authorities)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, retired person, tax on income, tax relief








C_2016260EN.01001201.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/12





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes
(Case C-300/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 21 and 45 TFEU - Freedom of movement and of residence of persons and workers - Income tax - Retirement pension - Pensioners’ tax credit - Conditions for granting - Possession of a tax deduction form issued by national authorities))
(2016/C 260/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

Defendant: Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 21 and 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national tax law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the eligibility for the pensioners’ tax credit to taxpayers in possession of a tax deduction form.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-99/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark NOOSFERA — Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, clothing, cultural event, education, footwear industry, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002602.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/26





Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)
(Case T-99/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark NOOSFERA - Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/29)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 158/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sfera Joven and Las banderas del Mediterráneo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sfera Joven, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8002 — Apollo Management/Açoreana Seguros) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2016187EN.01000101.xml










26.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8002 — Apollo Management/Açoreana Seguros)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 187/01)
On 20 May 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 the English language 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 32016M8002. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-198/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Section XVII — Vehicles — Chapter 87 — Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof — Headings 8703 and 8713 — Vehicles with battery-powered electric motors — Definition of ‘disabled persons’)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, common customs tariff, facilities for people with disabilities, physically disabled person, tariff nomenclature, vehicle, vessel








C_2016260EN.01000702.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/7





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
(Case C-198/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Section XVII - Vehicles - Chapter 87 - Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof - Headings 8703 and 8713 - Vehicles with battery-powered electric motors - Definition of ‘disabled persons’))
(2016/C 260/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd, Invacare International SARL

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning:






—


the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean that the product is designed solely for disabled persons;










—


the fact that a vehicle may be used by non-disabled persons is irrelevant to the classification under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature










—


the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature are not capable of amending the scope of the tariff headings of the Combined Nomenclature.














2.


the words ‘disabled persons’ under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that they designate persons affected by a non-marginal limit on their ability to walk, the duration of that limitation and the existence of other limitations relating to the capacities of those persons being irrelevant.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, EU expenditure, administrator, competition (EU), corruption, customs inspection, industrial counterfeiting, supervisor, tobacco








C_2016187EN.01002001.xml










26.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/20





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
(2016/C 187/05)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


EPSO/AD/323/16 — INVESTIGATORS (AD 7) for the following profiles:

1 — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption

2 — Investigators: Customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods










 


EPSO/AD/324/16 — INVESTIGATORS (AD 9): Team leaders




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 187 A of 26 May 2016.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-362/14: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — REWE-Zentral v EUIPO — Vicente Gandía Pla (MY PLANET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, clothing, footwear industry, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016270EN.01004302.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/43





Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — REWE-Zentral v EUIPO — Vicente Gandía Pla (MY PLANET)
(Case T-362/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 270/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. P. Harrington and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Vicente Gandía Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 201/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía PIa SA and REWE-Zentral AG.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case T-280/16: Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)
Date: 2016-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law, wind energy








C_2016260EN.01004801.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/48





Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)
(Case T-280/16)
(2016/C 260/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: GeoClimaDesign AG (Fürstenwalde/Spree, Germany) (represented by: B. Lanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie GmbH (Langenhorn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GEO’ — European Union trade mark No 8 331 076

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2016 in Case R 1679/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the mark in question or, in the alternative, the mark for the organisational preparation of building projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular wind power stations and wind parks of Class 35, real estate management and brokerage services in the realisation of projects in the area of renewable energies, in particular wind energy plants and wind parks; the repair and maintenance of wind energy plants in Class 37 and the technical project design of projects in the field of energy supply; the technical project design of projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular the field of wind energy plants and wind parks; services of engineers in the field of renewable energies, in particular in the field of wind energy plants; the drawing up of technical and academic opinions in Class 42;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.