do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-516/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 178(a) — Right of deduction — Conditions of exercise — Article 226(6) and (7) — Details required in invoices — Extent and nature of the services rendered — Date on which the supply of services is made)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative formalities, invoicing, legal aid, provision of services, tax authorities, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2016419EN.01000601.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-516/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 178(a) - Right of deduction - Conditions of exercise - Article 226(6) and (7) - Details required in invoices - Extent and nature of the services rendered - Date on which the supply of services is made))
(2016/C 419/06)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered from [a date] until the present date’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not a priori comply with the requirements of point 6 of that article and that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered until the present date’ do not a priori comply either with the requirements of point 6 or with those of point 7 of that article, which is, however, for the referring tribunal to ascertain.
Article 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct value added tax solely because the taxable person holds an invoice which does not satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(6) and (7) of that directive, even though those authorities have available all the necessary information for ascertaining whether the substantive conditions for the exercise of that right are satisfied.


(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case T-359/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Arrom Conseil v EUIPO — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci — Earlier EU word marks NINA RICCI and RICCI — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016402EN.01004102.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/41





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Arrom Conseil v EUIPO — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
(Case T-359/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci - Earlier EU word marks NINA RICCI and RICCI - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 402/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2015 (Case R 1021/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Nina Ricci SARL and Arrom Conseil.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Arrom Conseil to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and Nina Ricci SARL.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-796/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, approximation of laws, rights of the defence, tobacco industry








C_2016392EN.01003002.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/30





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission
(Case T-796/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))
(2016/C 392/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3142109 of 24 September 2014, in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception of the redacted personal data contained therein.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Philip Morris Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Case T-481/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Supply of services for the development of a knowledge and information management platform — Software development services and maintenance of availability and efficiency of computer services — Refusal to rank the applicants in first place — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest errors of assessment — Access to documents — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, award of contract, indemnification, invitation to tender, services contract, software








C_2016402EN.01003702.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/37





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT
(Case T-481/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Supply of services for the development of a knowledge and information management platform - Software development services and maintenance of availability and efficiency of computer services - Refusal to rank the applicants in first place - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest errors of assessment - Access to documents - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 402/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by E. Siouti and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri and A. Lymperopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (represented initially by M. Kern, B. Győri-Hartwig and P. Juanes Burgos, and subsequently by B. Győri-Hartwig and P. Juanes Burgos, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Application, firstly, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the EIT’s decision of 14 April 2014 ranking the tender submitted by the applicants in the context of an invitation to tender relating to computer and related services in second place, and for annulment of the EIT’s letter of 25 April 2014 by which it refused to communicate the names of the members of the evaluation committee and, secondly, on the basis of Article 168 TFEU, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case T-118/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — LDC Argentina v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, production cost








C_2016402EN.01003102.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/31





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — LDC Argentina v Council
(Case T-118/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
(2016/C 402/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LDC Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern LDC Argentina SA;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by LDC Argentina;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case T-91/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — AEDEC v Commission (Technological research and development — ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation — Calls for proposals in respect of work programmes 2014-2015 — Commission decision declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Openness — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, financial aid, financing, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, research and development, rights of the defence








C_2016402EN.01004101.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/41





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — AEDEC v Commission
(Case T-91/15) (1)

((Technological research and development - ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation - Calls for proposals in respect of work programmes 2014-2015 - Commission decision declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Openness - Manifest error of assessment))
(2016/C 402/46)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Asociación Española para el Desarrollo de la Epidemiología Clínica (AEDEC) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. López López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Ruiz García and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of 4 September 2014 in which the Commission rejected the request for financing submitted by the applicant on behalf of the consortium Latin Plan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Asociación Española para el Desarrollo de la Epidemiología Clínica (AEDEC) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case T-76/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Morningstar v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Worldwide market for consolidated real-time datafeeds — Decision making the commitments offered by the dominant undertaking binding — Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, data transmission, dominant position, international market








C_2016392EN.01002501.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/25





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Morningstar v Commission
(Case T-76/14) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Worldwide market for consolidated real-time datafeeds - Decision making the commitments offered by the dominant undertaking binding - Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003))
(2016/C 392/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly, P. Harrison, Solicitors, and M. Abenhaïm, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Thomson Reuters Corp. (Toronto, Canada), and Reuters Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Nourry, G. Olsen and C. Ghosh, Solicitors)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 9635 final of 20 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/D2/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes (RICs)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Morningstar, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8173 — CPPIB/OTPP/IDEAL/Arco Norte) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, land transport, merger control, provision of services








C_2016338EN.01000101.xml










15.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8173 — CPPIB/OTPP/IDEAL/Arco Norte)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 338/01)
On 8 September 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 32016M8173. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-675/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — K Chimica v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Determination of an enterprise’s size — Power of the ECHA)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid to undertakings, payment, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2016392EN.01002301.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/23





Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — K Chimica v ECHA
(Case T-675/13) (1)

((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Determination of an enterprise’s size - Power of the ECHA))
(2016/C 392/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: K Chimica Srl (Mirano, Italy) (represented by: R. Buizza and M. Rota, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by M. Heikkilä, A. Iber, E. Bigi and E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, and subsequently by Heikkilä, Bigi, Maurage and Trnka, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the ECHA of 15 October 2013, stating that the applicant failed to adduce the necessary evidence to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposes an administrative charge on it, second, requesting that the applicant be granted small enterprise status and that the corresponding fee be applied to it, and third, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the invoices issued by the ECHA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Decision SME(2013) 3665 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 15 October 2013;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the ECHA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by K Chimica Srl.






(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2016338EN.01000301.xml










15.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/3





Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
(2016/C 338/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons designated in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1) and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.
The Council intends to amend the statement of reasons for Mr Agila SALEH ISSA GWAIDER, Mr Khalifa GHWELL and Mr Nuri ABU, persons listed in Annexes II and IV to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44.
The persons concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons, before 20 September 2016, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu






(1)  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.
Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the second half of 2015
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: Standing Committee of the EFTA States
Subjects: European Economic Area, carcinogenic substance, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, toxic substance








C_2016338EN.01001101.xml










15.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/11





Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the second half of 2015
(2016/C 338/13)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods


To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 July–31 December 2015, at their meeting on 18 March 2016.


ANNEX

List of authorisation decisions

The following authorisation decisions in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) have been taken in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 July–31 December 2015:








Substance name


Commission decision under Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006


Country


Date of decision




Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP)


C(2015) 1619 final


Iceland


13 August 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 3524 final


Iceland


13 August 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6004


Norway


14 September 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6004


Liechtenstein


21 October 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6004


Iceland


2 November 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6007


Norway


14 September 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6007


Liechtenstein


21 October 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6007


Iceland


2 November 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6063


Norway


14 September 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6063


Liechtenstein


21 October 2015




Diarsenic trioxide


C(2015) 6063


Iceland


2 November 2015




Trichloroethylene


C(2015) 8093


Norway


2 December 2015




Trichloroethylene


C(2015) 8093


Liechtenstein


14 December 2015