do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-7/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Assignment of a claim — Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt — Conditions governing the exercise of that right)
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, civil code, claim, consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2016343EN.01001701.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/17





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz
(Case C-7/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Assignment of a claim - Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt - Conditions governing the exercise of that right))
(2016/C 343/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL

Defendants: María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the right of the person owing a debt that has been assigned by the creditor to a third party to extinguish his debt by reimbursing to that third party the price paid by the latter in respect of that assignment.


(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8032 — RAM/Termica Milazzo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, gas industry, merger control, oil industry








C_2016244EN.01001901.xml










5.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8032 — RAM/Termica Milazzo)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 244/06)






1.


On 27 June 2016 the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Raffineria di Milazzo S.C.p.A. (‘RAM’, Italy), jointly controlled by Eni S.p.A. (‘Eni’, Italy) and Kuwait Petroleum Italia S.p.A. (‘Kupit’, Italy), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Termica Milazzo s.r.l. (‘Termica Milazzo’, Italy), by way of purchase of 100 % of its capital.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


RAM is a joint-stock consortium company which operates an oil refinery in Milazzo, Sicily (Italy),










—


ENI is a global company active in various sectors such as the exploration and production of natural gas and oil and electricity generation and supply,










—


Kupit, the Italian subsidiary of Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, operates in the oil marketing, trade and distribution sector,










—


Termica Milazzo is a company active in the energy sector and operates a combined cycle thermoelectric power plant in Milazzo, Sicily (Italy).














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 to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date on which this notification is published. They can be sent to the Commission under reference number M.8032 — RAM/Termica Milazzo by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post 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.
Case C-614/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Content of a request for a preliminary ruling — National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1))
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, national law, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016335EN.01000802.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/8





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov
(Case C-614/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Content of a request for a preliminary ruling - National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1)))
(2016/C 335/10)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party in the main proceedings

Atanas Ognyanov

Intervener: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a pending case, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case.










2.


EU law, and in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the referring court, after the delivery of the preliminary ruling, to hear the parties again and to undertake further inquiries, which might lead it to alter the findings of fact or law made in the request for a preliminary ruling, nor does it prohibit the referring court from doing so, provided that the referring court gives full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.










3.


EU law must be interpreted as precluding a referring court from applying a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is deemed to be contrary to EU law.






(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
Commission Decision of 5 July 2016 amending Decision 2012/C 188/02 setting up a group of experts on value added tax with regard to the duration of the term of office of the members of the group
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: VAT, consultancy, elective office, invitation to tender, self-employed person








C_2016245EN.01000601.xml










6.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/6





COMMISSION DECISION
of 5 July 2016
amending Decision 2012/C 188/02 setting up a group of experts on value added tax with regard to the duration of the term of office of the members of the group
(2016/C 245/04)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:






(1)


Commission Decision 2012/C 188/02 (1) set up a group of experts on value added tax to advise the Commission on the preparation of legislative acts and other policy initiatives in the field of VAT and to provide insight concerning the practical implementation of legislative acts and other EU policy initiatives in that field.










(2)


Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of Decision 2012/C 188/02 provides that members are appointed for two years. Their term of office may be renewed if they respond again to a call for applications. The term of office of the current members of the group, appointed by the Director-General for Taxation and Customs Union by the Decision of 25 September 2014, expires on 30 September 2016.










(3)


The group has proved very useful in collecting its members’ views and specific knowledge in the course of the development of new VAT policy and the implementation of EU VAT legislation.










(4)


In view of the experience gained since 2012 in the working of the group and to allow for more continuity in this respect, it is considered appropriate to extend the duration of the term of office of future members of the group from two to three years.










(5)


Decision 2012/C 188/02 should therefore be amended accordingly,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of Decision 2012/C 188/02 is replaced by the following:

‘6.   Members shall be appointed for three years. They shall remain in office until the end of their term of office. Their term of office may be renewed if they respond again to a call for applications.’


Done at Brussels, 5 July 2016.


For the Commission

Pierre MOSCOVICI

Member of the Commission





(1)  Commission Decision 2012/C 188/02 of 26 June 2012 setting up a group of experts on value added tax (OJ C 188, 28.6.2012, p. 2).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 July 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Peru on the short-stay visa waiver (12099/2015 — C8-0143/2016 — 2015/0199(NLE))
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU visa policy, Peru, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national, ratification of an agreement








C_2018101EN.01017601.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/176





P8_TA(2016)0295
EU-Peru Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 July 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Peru on the short-stay visa waiver (12099/2015 — C8-0143/2016 — 2015/0199(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 101/16)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12099/2015),










—


having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Peru on the short-stay visa waiver (12097/2015),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0143/2016),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0197/2016),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Peru.
Case T-26/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection board — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality)
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, appointment of members, competition (EU), managing director








C_2016314EN.01002002.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/20





Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov
(Case T-26/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection board - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))
(2016/C 314/28)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;










2.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011, by which it proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case T-518/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Future Enterprises v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (MACCOFFEE) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union word mark MACCOFFEE — Earlier European Union word mark McDONALD’S — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Family of marks — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Declaration of invalidity)
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01002601.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/26





Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Future Enterprises v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (MACCOFFEE)
(Case T-518/13) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark MACCOFFEE - Earlier European Union word mark McDONALD’S - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Family of marks - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Declaration of invalidity))
(2016/C 305/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented initially by B. Hitchens, J. Olsen, R. Sharma, M. Henshall, Solicitors, and R. Tritton, Barrister, and subsequently by B. Hitchens, J. Olsen, R. Tritton and E. Hughes-Jones, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2013 (Case R 1178/2012-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. and Future Enterprises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Future Enterprises Pte Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
Case C-369/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Munster, Sardinia, State aid, control of State aid, excise duty, fuel, metallurgical industry, mineral oil, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption








C_2016371EN.01000201.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/2





Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-369/16 P)
(2016/C 371/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, T. Joyce, agents, P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the Judgment










—


annul the Decision (1)











—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings





Pleas in law and main arguments

Ireland relies on four pleas in this appeal:






a)


The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision.










b)


The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable.










c)


The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd.










d)


The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid.






(1)  2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel in a production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C (2005) 4436)

OJ L 119, p. 12


(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1989 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

OJ L 83, p. 1
Case T-167/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v EUIPO — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — EU word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No bad faith)
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, gift item, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01003102.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/31





Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v EUIPO — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)
(Case T-167/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No bad faith))
(2016/C 305/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV (Veitsbronn, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: M. Müller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2015 (Case R 28/2014-5), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise and Freistaat Bayern.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.