do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-283/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Income tax — National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State — Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, frontier worker, housing, residence, right of establishment, self-employed person, tax law, tax on income, tax relief








C_2017104EN.01001501.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/15





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-283/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Income tax - National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State - Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances))
(2017/C 104/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, the tax legislation of which permits the deduction of ‘negative income’ relating to a dwelling, from refusing the benefit of that deduction to a self-employed non-resident where that person receives, within that Member State, 60 % of his total income and does not receive, within the Member State where his dwelling is located, income that enables him to qualify for an equivalent right to deduct.










2.


The injunction imposed by the answer to the first question concerns any Member State of activity within which a self-employed person receives income enabling him to claim there an equivalent right of deduction, in proportion to the share of that income received within each Member State of activity. In that regard, a ‘Member State of activity’ is any Member State that has the power to tax such income from the activities of a non-resident as is received within its territory, irrespective of where the activities are actually performed.










3.


The fact that the non-resident taxpayer concerned receives part of his taxable income not within a Member State, but within a non-Member State, is of no relevance to the answer to the second question.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-106/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO — Earlier EU figurative mark zero — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017086EN.01002701.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/27





Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)
(Case T-106/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO - Earlier EU figurative mark zero - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 086/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between zero Holding and Mr Hemming.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case C-525/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava — Spain) — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, credit, interest, unfair terms of contract








C_2017129EN.01001202.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/12





Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava — Spain) — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada
(Case C-525/15) (1)

(2017/C 129/15)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Case C-443/16: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid — Spain) — Francisco Rodrigo Sanz v Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Restructuring the organisation of universities — National rules — Integration of college lecturers into the body of university lecturers — Condition — Attainment of a doctorate degree — Changing full-time posts into part-time posts — Applied only to teachers employed as interim civil servants — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, framework agreement, reduction of working time, teacher, temporary employment, university, working conditions








C_2017129EN.01000401.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/4





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid — Spain) — Francisco Rodrigo Sanz v Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
(Case C-443/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - Restructuring the organisation of universities - National rules - Integration of college lecturers into the body of university lecturers - Condition - Attainment of a doctorate degree - Changing full-time posts into part-time posts - Applied only to teachers employed as interim civil servants - Principle of non-discrimination))
(2017/C 129/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Francisco Rodrigo Sanz

Defendant: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of measures restructuring the organisation of universities, authorises the competent authorities of the Member State concerned to reduce by half the working hours of college lecturers employed as interim civil servants on account of them not having a doctorate degree, whereas university lecturers employed as permanent civil servants who also do not have a doctorate degree are not subject to the same measure.


(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Case C-21/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 131 and 138 — Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply — VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) — Purchaser’s failure to register — Refusal to grant the exemption — Whether permissible)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, carriage of goods, goods and services, nationality of legal persons, principle of proportionality, residence, supply, tax exemption, tax system








C_2017104EN.01002101.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/21





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-21/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 131 and 138 - Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply - VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) - Purchaser’s failure to register - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))
(2017/C 104/30)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131 and Article 138(1) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to exempt an intra-Community supply from value added tax on the sole ground that, at the time of that supply, the purchaser domiciled in the territory of the Member State of destination and who was in possession of a valid identification number for the purposes of value added tax in that Member State is neither registered in the Value Added Tax Information Exchange System nor comes under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, where there is no sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and it is established that the basic conditions of the exemption are fulfilled. In that case, Article 138(1) of that directive, interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, also precludes such refusal where the vendor was aware of the circumstances of the situation of the purchaser with regard to the application of VAT and was convinced that subsequently the purchaser would be registered as an intra-Community operator with retroactive effect.


(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Case T-714/16: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017121EN.01003402.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/34





Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)
(Case T-714/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 121/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Capostagno, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2016 (Case R 282/2015-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Red Bull and Asolo.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Asolo LTD and Red Bull GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8223 — Micro Focus/HPE Software Business) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2017042EN.01000901.xml










9.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8223 — Micro Focus/HPE Software Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 42/07)






1.


On 1 February 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Micro Focus of the United Kingdom acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the software business of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”, United States). The proposed transaction will ultimately be effected by merging a subsidiary of Micro Focus with and into a newly formed subsidiary of HPE, which will hold the software business of HPE. Furthermore, Micro Focus (through its subsidiary SUSE LLC “SUSE”) and HPE have entered into an understanding pursuant to which HPE will transfer to Micro Focus certain assets related to HPE's “Helion OpenStack” and “Stackato products”.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Micro Focus: COBOL (a programming language) development and mainframe solutions, identity access and security solutions, development and IT operations management tools, host connectivity solutions, collaboration and networking solutions and SUSE, an open source operating system.
—   for the software business of HPE: development of enterprise software products, including software for business service management, application lifecycle management, mobile application testing, big data analytics, service and portfolio management, automation and orchestration, and enterprise security.










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.










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.8223 — Micro Focus/HPE Software Business, 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’).
Case T-696/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Bodegas Vega Sicilia v EUIPO (TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine with geographical indications — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2017086EN.01002501.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/25





Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Bodegas Vega Sicilia v EUIPO (TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA)
(Case T-696/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark for wine with geographical indications - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 086/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bodegas Vega Sicilia, SA (Valbuena de Duero, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2015 (Case R 285/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bodegas Vega Sicilia, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case C-72/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, collective dismissal, employer, staff, work contract, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2017144EN.01002801.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-72/17)
(2017/C 144/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Isabelle Walkner

Defendant: APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?










4.


Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, environmental protection, financial aid, maritime transport








C_2017042EN.01000401.xml










9.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/4





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2017/C 42/04)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


21 November 2016





Case No



:


79767





Decision No



:


208/16/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Title



:


Aid scheme for short sea shipping





Legal basis



:


The Norwegian Parliament decides on the scope of the aid scheme in its annual decisions on the state budget.





Type of measure



:


Scheme





Objective



:


Environmental protection





Form of aid



:


Direct grants





Budget



:


NOK 60 million annually





Intensity



:


Up to 30 % of operational cost





Duration



:


First quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2022 (5 years)





Economic sectors



:


Transport





Name and address of the granting authority



:


The Ministry of Transport and Communications/The Norwegian Coastal Administration





Other information



:


 




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/