do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, innovation, new technology, printer








C_2016457EN.01000601.xml










8.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/6





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2016/C 457/04)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 328, the following text is inserted:








‘8474 80 90




Other

This subheading includes 3D printers for making articles from the materials referred to in the heading 8474.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, award of contract, financial aid, invitation to tender, trans-European network, transport network








C_2017070EN.01000901.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/9





Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
(Case C-635/16 P)
(2017/C 070/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (represented by: Y. de Vries, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 in case T-564/15;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by finding that the action is inadmissible, given that it is directed against the Commission, who is not the author of the contested act;
The General Court erred in law by finding that the action was inadmissible because the contested act is merely provisional in nature and therefore is not a definitive act;
The General Court erred in law by rejecting Spliethoff’s request to treat its action for annulment as if it were directed against the 31 July Decision (1).


(1)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme
Case C-127/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer protection — Consumer credit — Article 2(2)(j) — Rescheduling agreements — Deferred payment, free of charge — Article 3(f) — Credit intermediaries — Debt recovery companies acting on behalf of lenders)
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, debt, payment, provision of services








C_2017038EN.01000201.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/2





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH
(Case C-127/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 2(2)(j) - Rescheduling agreements - Deferred payment, free of charge - Article 3(f) - Credit intermediaries - Debt recovery companies acting on behalf of lenders))
(2017/C 038/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: INKO, Inkasso GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(2)(j) and 3(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a credit rescheduling agreement, which is concluded, following the consumer’s default, between that consumer and the lender through a debt collection agency, is not agreed to ‘free of charge’, within the meaning of that article, where, by that agreement, the consumer undertakes to repay the total amount of that credit and to pay interest and costs that were not provided for by the initial contract under which that credit was granted;










2.


Article 3(f) and Article 7 of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a debt collection agency which concludes, on behalf of a lender, a rescheduling agreement for an unpaid credit, but which acts as a credit intermediary only in an ancillary capacity, which is for the referring court to determine, must be regarded as being a ‘credit intermediary’ within the meaning of Article 3(f) and is not subject to the obligation to provide the consumer with pre-contractual information under Articles 5 and 6 of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Joined Cases C-532/15 and C-538/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot — Spain) — Eurosaneamientos SL, Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de Reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, SA (C-532/15), Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser SA (C-538/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services provided by Procuradores de los Tribunales — Tariff — Jurisdictions — Derogation impossible)
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial proceedings, jurisdiction, lawyer, remuneration of work, wage determination








C_2017038EN.01000401.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/4





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot — Spain) — Eurosaneamientos SL, Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de Reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, SA (C-532/15), Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser SA (C-538/15)
(Joined Cases C-532/15 and C-538/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services provided by Procuradores de los Tribunales - Tariff - Jurisdictions - Derogation impossible))
(2017/C 038/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring courts

Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Eurosaneamientos SL, Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de Reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA (C-532/15), Francesc de Bolós Pi (C-538/15)

Defendants: ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, SA (C-532/15), Urbaser SA (C-538/15)

Intervener: Consejo General de Procuradores de España (C-532/15)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the fees of procuradores subject to a tariff which may be increased or decreased only by 12 %, in respect of which the national courts merely check its strict application without being in a position, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from the limits set by that tariff.










2.


The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions in Case C-532/15 and the third to fifth questions in Case C-538/15 referred by the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Provincial Court, Zaragoza, Spain) and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Court of First Instance, Olot, Spain) respectively.






(1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2301 of 8 December 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Olio di Calabria (PGI))
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Calabria, Italy, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2016345EN.01000101.xml










20.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 345/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/2301
of 8 December 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Olio di Calabria (PGI))


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, Italy's application to register the name ‘Olio di Calabria’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Olio di Calabria’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Olio di Calabria’ (PGI) 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, 8 December 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 304, 20.8.2016, p. 46.

(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).
Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by Lithuania of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Lithuania, action programme, air quality, industrial pollution, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste incineration








C_2016461EN.01000701.xml










10.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 461/7







Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by Lithuania of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
(2016/C 461/04)

On 8 December 2016, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2016) 7891 on the notification by Lithuania of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (1).
This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee


(1)  
            OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.
Case C-208/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Integrated cooperation — Grant of financing and supplies of current assets necessary for agricultural production — Single, complex supply — Distinct and independent supplies — Ancillary supply and principal supply)
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, farmer, goods and services, grouping of farms, loan, provision of services, supply








C_2017038EN.01000301.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-208/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Integrated cooperation - Grant of financing and supplies of current assets necessary for agricultural production - Single, complex supply - Distinct and independent supplies - Ancillary supply and principal supply))
(2017/C 038/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


an integrated agricultural cooperation providing that an economic operator delivers goods to a farmer and grants him a loan intended for purchasing those goods constitutes a single transaction for the purposes of that directive, in which the supply of the goods is the principal supply. The taxable amount of that single transaction is made up of both the price of those goods and the interest paid on the loans granted to the farmers;










—


the fact that an integrator may provide the farmers with additional services or buy their agricultural production has no bearing on the categorisation of the transaction at issue as a single transaction, for the purposes of Directive 2006/112.






(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8083 — Merck/Sanofi Pasteur MSD) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2016457EN.01000101.xml










8.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8083 — Merck/Sanofi Pasteur MSD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 457/01)
On 15 November 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 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 32016M8083. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-600/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Lemnis Lighting BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 — Light-emitting diode bulbs (LED))
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, lighting equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2017038EN.01000502.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/5





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Lemnis Lighting BV
(Case C-600/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 - Light-emitting diode bulbs (LED)))
(2017/C 038/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Lemnis Lighting BV

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature 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 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as the LED bulbs at issue in the main proceedings fall, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts before it, under heading 8543 of that nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Special Report No 32/2016 — ‘EU assistance to Ukraine’
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, European neighbourhood policy, Ukraine, corruption, economic situation, economic stabilisation, financial aid, international cooperation, natural gas, security of supply








C_2016457EN.01000701.xml










8.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/7





Special Report No 32/2016
‘EU assistance to Ukraine’
(2016/C 457/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 32/2016 ‘EU assistance to Ukraine’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Case C-27/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Angel Marinkov v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC — Scope — Manifest inadmissibility — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, jurisdiction, right to justice, unfair dismissal








C_2017086EN.01000201.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/2





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Angel Marinkov v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina
(Case C-27/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC - Scope - Manifest inadmissibility - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
(2017/C 086/02)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Angel Marinkov

Defendant: Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina

Re:

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria), by decision of 28 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible in that it concerns Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2006/54/ЕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred in that they concern Article 30, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8302 — Koch Industries/Guardian Industries) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, glass industry, merger control








C_2016457EN.01001401.xml










8.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8302 — Koch Industries/Guardian Industries)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 457/12)






1.


On 1 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Koch Industries, Inc. (United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Guardian Industries Corp. (United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Koch Industries, Inc.: refining, chemicals and biofuels, forest and consumer products, fertilisers, polymers and fibres, electronic components, process and pollution control equipment and technologies, commodity trading, minerals, energy, ranching, and investments.
—   for Guardian Industries Corp.: worldwide in manufacturing float glass, fabricated glass products and coated injection moulded plastic parts for automotive and other applications, and in the United States distributing building materials for commercial and residential applications.










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 their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8302 — Koch Industries/Guardian Industries, 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.