do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-506/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2016 — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, death, indemnification, married person, motor vehicle, national law, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2016454EN.01001902.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2016 — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State
(Case C-506/16)
(2016/C 454/34)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: José Joaquim Neto de Sousa

Defendant: Portuguese State

Question referred

Do the requirements of the Second (1) and Third (2) Directives on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles preclude the national legislation from providing for the culpable driver to be compensated, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event that his spouse, who was a passenger in the vehicle, dies, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Decree-Law No 522 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree-Law No 130 of 19 May 1994?


(1)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(2)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1766 of 26 September 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Korčulansko maslinovo ulje (PDO)]
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2016270EN.01000101.xml










5.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 270/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1766
of 26 September 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Korčulansko maslinovo ulje (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 September 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 187, 26.5.2016, p. 21.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-382/15: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2016 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Nuclear energy — Aid in support of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station — Contract for difference, agreement of the Secretary of State and credit guarantee — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market — Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, State aid, investment aid, nuclear energy, nuclear power station, tendering








C_2016419EN.01004601.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/46





Order of the General Court of 26 September 2016 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission
(Case T-382/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Nuclear energy - Aid in support of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Contract for difference, agreement of the Secretary of State and credit guarantee - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 419/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Greenpeace Energy eG (Hamburg, Germany) and the nine other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Nysten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (OJ 2015 L 109, p. 44).

Operative part of the order

The Court orders as follows:






1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by NNB Generation Company Limited, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland.










3.


Greenpeace Energy eG and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










4.


Greenpeace Energy and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, the Commission, NNB Generation Company Limited, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case C-509/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2016 by Francisco Javier Rosa Rodríguez against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 20 July 2016 in Case T-358/16 Rosa Rodríguez v Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: education, educational guidance, vocational education, young person








C_2017022EN.01000302.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/3





Appeal brought on 26 September 2016 by Francisco Javier Rosa Rodríguez against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 20 July 2016 in Case T-358/16 Rosa Rodríguez v Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía

(Case C-509/16 P)
(2017/C 022/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Francisco Javier Rosa Rodríguez (represented by: J. Velasco Velasco, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía
By order of 8 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Rosa Rodríguez to bear his own costs.
Case T-691/16: Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Elevolution-Engenharia v Commission
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competence of the institution, debt, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2016441EN.01002601.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/26






Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Elevolution-Engenharia v Commission
(Case T-691/16)
(2016/C 441/30)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Elevolution-Engenharia SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pinto Cardoso and L. Fuzeta da Ponte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


grant the application in its entirety and thereby annul the Commission’s decisions containing the debit notes received by the applicant by letter on 3 August 2016;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, to be assessed.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence. It is submitted that the Commission lacks the competence and powers to adopt the acts which are to be annulled.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. The reasoning of the disputed notes is implied or tacit, or clothed in obscurity, and the notes are not consistent with EU law.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringements of the Treaty and rules for its implementation.
Action brought on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-13/16)
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, commercial vehicle, infringement procedure (EU), road safety, roadworthiness tests, technical regulations








C_2016467EN.01002601.xml










15.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 467/26





Action brought on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-13/16)
(2016/C 467/13)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Audur Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 17h of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community) by not introducing the technical roadside inspections required by Article 3(1) of the Act.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 16 September 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 16 July 2014 regarding that State’s failure to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 17h of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community) by not introducing the technical roadside inspections required by Article 3(1) of the Act.
Case T-704/16: Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016454EN.01002802.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/28






Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)
(Case T-704/16)
(2016/C 454/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Murka Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Santos Rodriguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SCATTER SLOTS’ — Application for registration No 14 590 889

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2016 in Case R 471/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No. 207/2009.
Case C-508/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2016 — Karim Boudjellal v Rauwers Contrôle SA
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, fundamental rights, jurisdiction, personal data








C_2017053EN.01002002.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2016 — Karim Boudjellal v Rauwers Contrôle SA
(Case C-508/16)
(2017/C 053/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Karim Boudjellal

Defendant: Rauwers Contrôle SA
By order of 11 January 2017, the Court (Seventh Chamber) declared that it had no jurisdiction to answer the questions put to it by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium).
Case C-507/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2016 — ‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, national law, provision of services, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2016441EN.01001301.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2016 — ‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
(Case C-507/16)
(2016/C 441/16)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 214 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the right to deduct input tax, different weight is to be attached to the cases of registration for the purposes of value added tax, or does Article 214 of that directive preclude the Member States from attaching differing weight to the cases of registration, as is the position under Articles 97а and 70(4) of the ZDDS?










2.


Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has been registered pursuant to Article 214(1)(e) of that directive is not entitled to deduct input tax declared by him in respect of supplies to him of services carried out by taxable persons from other Member States if he uses those supplies in order to provide services in other Member States and the other substantive and procedural conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct are satisfied?










3.


Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 70(4) of the ZDDS, under which a taxable person who has been registered for purposes of value added tax pursuant to Article 214(1)(d) or (e) of that directive, and not pursuant to Article 214(1)(a) thereof, has under no circumstances a right to deduct input tax?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
(OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).