do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 July 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV — Rapporteur: Malta
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, audiovisual industry, broadcasting, control of restrictive practices, pay television, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, restriction on competition, trade licence








C_2016437EN.01000201.xml










25.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/2





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 July 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV
Rapporteur: Malta
(2016/C 437/02)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its draft Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 23 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings against Paramount can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Paramount are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its Statement of Objections.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Paramount, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Paramount without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










5.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.






(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.
Case C-447/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Directive 2003/59/EC — Obligation to obtain an initial qualification — Article 4 — Acquired rights — Holders of driving licences issued before the dates laid down in Article 4 — Exemption from the obligation to obtain an initial qualification — National legislation setting an additional requirement for periodic training of 35 hours duration in order to benefit from that exemption)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, drivers, professional qualifications








C_2016335EN.01002501.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/25





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje
(Case C-447/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2003/59/EC - Obligation to obtain an initial qualification - Article 4 - Acquired rights - Holders of driving licences issued before the dates laid down in Article 4 - Exemption from the obligation to obtain an initial qualification - National legislation setting an additional requirement for periodic training of 35 hours duration in order to benefit from that exemption))
(2016/C 335/33)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ivo Muladi

Defendant: Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, before the driving activity in question may be carried out, periodic training of 35 hours duration has to be completed by persons who are exempted, under Article 4, from the requirement that drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers obtain an initial qualification.


(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
Publications Office Newsletter. n°37, July 2016.
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Publications Office of the European Union
Subjects: EU publication, Publications Office of the European Union, serial publication

The monthly Newsletter of the Publications Office of the European Union

Publications Office Newsletter

Not displaying correctly?
View this email in your browser

N° 37
July 2016

ISSN 2315-0017

Recently published

Discover

PDF/EPUB

European Drug Report 2016
Trends and developments

This report brings together an up-to-date and
top-level overview of drug use, drug
problems and drug markets, and integrates
this situational analysis with information on
drug policies and practice in Europe.

Available in all the official languages of the EU
except Irish

Download e-book

APP

CVRIA
Easy access to decisions of the Court of
Justice of the European Union

Do you need to stay up to date on the work of
the Court of Justice of the European Union?
This handy app provides easy access to the
latest decisions of the Court of Justice, the
General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal,
as well as the latest press releases.

Available in English

Download app:
iOS / Android

PDF

31 Countries — 1 Internal Market of
Safe Products
Rapid alert system for dangerous
products — 2015 results

Find out which products were most frequently
notified as risky in 2015 and see what
measures are taken against dangerous
products found on the European market.

Available in English

View publication details

PDF

Access City Award 2016
Examples of best practice for making EU
cities more accessible

Discover which European city is this year’s
winner for its consistent efforts to improve
accessibility for citizens and visitors.

Available in all the official languages of the EU
except Irish

View publication details

PDF/PAPER

Annual Report 2015
Community Plan Variety Office -
highlights from 2015

This report presents the activities of the
Community Plant Variety Office, which
manages a system for the protection of plant
variety rights in the EU. Although the report is
currently available only in English, the French
version will follow in the second half of July.

Available in English

View publication details

PDF

Renewable Energy in Europe in 2016
Recent growth and knock-on effects

The development of a resilient Energy Union
with a forward-looking climate policy is one
of the strategic objectives of the EU. This
report details the progress achieved in this
area as regards renewable energy sources.

Available in English

View publication details

EU Law and Publications

@eubookshop · @EURLex 

@myCORDIS · @EUTenders 

@EC_opendata

Forward to a Friend

Online services
managed by the
Publications Office

Access to European Union law

All EU publications YOU are
looking for!

Public procurement within the
European Union

Access to European Union
open data

EU-funded research projects
and their results

The Official directory of the
European Union

Newsletter Archive

» Find all our publications on EU Bookshop

» Download our Key Publications Catalogue

Subscribe | Unsubscribe | About us | Contact | Privacy statement

OA-AT-16-007 -EN-N
Case C-111/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Občina Gorje v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Financing by the EAFRD — Support for rural development — Rules on eligibility of operations and expenditure — Temporal condition — Complete exclusion — Reduction of the aid)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EU aid, Slovenia, financial aid, investment, invitation to tender, rural development








C_2016335EN.01001302.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/13





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Občina Gorje v Republika Slovenija
(Case C-111/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Financing by the EAFRD - Support for rural development - Rules on eligibility of operations and expenditure - Temporal condition - Complete exclusion - Reduction of the aid))
(2016/C 335/17)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Občina Gorje

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which expenditure is eligible for a European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development contribution to the co-financing of an operation selected by the Managing Authority of the rural development programme in question or under its responsibility only where it is incurred after the adoption of the decision granting such support.










2.


Article 71(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005, read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the rejection in its entirety of a payment claim relating to an operation selected for European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development co-financing where certain expenditure incurred in respect of that operation was incurred prior to the adoption of the decision granting such support, where the beneficiary of the support did not intentionally make a false declaration in its payment claim.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175 of 8 February 2016 on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer (OJ L 33, 10.2.2016)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, Spain, household electrical appliance, launching of a product, market approval, pressure equipment, product safety, safety standard








L_2016182EN.01005801.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 182/58







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175 of 8 February 2016 on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 33 of 10 February 2016
)


On page 12, in recital 4:
for:







‘(4)


The EC Declaration of Conformity issued by the manufacturer for the pressure washer made reference, among others, to the harmonised standard EN 60335-2-67:2009 “Household and similar electrical appliances — Safety — Part 2-67: Particular requirements for floor treatment and floor cleaning machines for commercial use (IEC 60335-2-67:2002 (Modified) + A1:2005 (Modified))”.’,





read:







‘(4)


The EC Declaration of Conformity issued by the manufacturer for the pressure washer made reference, among others, to the harmonised standard EN 60335-2-79:2009 “Household and similar electrical appliances — Safety — Part 2-79: Particular requirements for high pressure cleaners and steam cleaners (IEC 60335-2-79:2002 + A1:2004 + A2:2007, modified)”.’;





on page 12, in the first, second and third indent of recital 5:
for:

               ‘EN 60335-2-67:2009’,
read:

               ‘EN 60335-2-79:2009’;
on page 13, in recital 8:
for:

               ‘EN 60335-2-67’,
read:

               ‘EN 60335-2-79’.
Case C-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business location, electronic commerce, invoicing, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2016392EN.01000601.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
(Case C-375/16)
(2016/C 392/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach

Defendant: Igor Butin

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax of 28 November 2006 (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) require the taxable person to indicate an address at which he carries on his economic activities?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:






a)


Is a letterbox address sufficient as an indication of address pursuant to Article 226(5) of the VAT Directive?










b)


Which address must a taxable person who operates an undertaking (in the Internet trade, for example) with no business premises indicate on an invoice?














3.


In the event that the formal invoicing requirements laid down in Article 226 of the VAT Directive are not met, must the taxable person automatically be allowed to deduct input tax where no tax evasion has been committed or the taxable person did not know, and could not have known, of the connection with fraud or, in that event, does the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations presuppose that the taxable person has done everything that could reasonably be required of him in order to verify the accuracy of the content of the invoice?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-431/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FRUIT — Genuine use of a mark — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — External use of the mark)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01003301.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/33





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)
(Case T-431/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FRUIT - Genuine use of a mark - Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - External use of the mark))
(2016/C 305/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (case R 1641/2014-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2015 (Case R 1641/2014-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of Fruit of the Loom, Inc.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case C-222/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction clause — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 23 — Clause inserted in the general conditions — Consent of the parties to those conditions — Validity and precision of such a clause)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, jurisdiction, law of obligations, mutual recognition principle, residence, trade dispute








C_2016335EN.01002002.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/20





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services
(Case C-222/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction clause - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Clause inserted in the general conditions - Consent of the parties to those conditions - Validity and precision of such a clause))
(2016/C 335/27)
Language of the case: Hungary

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hőszig Kft.

Defendant: Alstom Power Thermal Services,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, is set out in the client’s general terms and conditions, referred to in the instruments witnessing the contracts between those parties and forwarded upon their conclusion, and, secondly, designates as courts with jurisdiction those of a city of a Member State, meets the requirements of that provision relating to the consent of the parties and the precision of the content of such a clause.


(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8079 — RPC Group/British Polythene Industries) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry, rubber industry








C_2016246EN.01000102.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8079 — RPC Group/British Polythene Industries)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 246/02)
On 1 July 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 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 32016M8079. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1107 of 7 July 2016 amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Palestine, Palestine question, border control, common security and defence policy, cross-border cooperation, the EU's international role








L_2016183EN.01006401.xml










8.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 183/64








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1107
of 7 July 2016
         
amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP (1).












(2)


On 2 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1065 (2) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 30 June 2016.












(3)


Following the Interim Strategic Review of EU BAM Rafah, the Mission should be extended for a further period of 12 months, until 30 June 2017.












(4)


Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


EU BAM Rafah will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 13(1), the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 shall be EUR 1 545 000.’;










(2)


in Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall expire on 30 June 2017.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 1 July 2016.




Done at Brussels, 7 July 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK
            





(1)  Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1065 of 2 July 2015 amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (OJ L 174, 3.7.2015, p. 23).