do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-573/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Medical treatment using oxygen — Reduced VAT rate — Oxygen cylinders — Standard rate of VAT — Oxygen concentrators)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, medical device, oxygen, tax relief, therapeutics








C_2017144EN.01001001.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/10





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA
(Case C-573/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, points 3 and 4 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Medical treatment using oxygen - Reduced VAT rate - Oxygen cylinders - Standard rate of VAT - Oxygen concentrators))
(2017/C 144/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Oxycure Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Annex III, points 3 and 4, thereto, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the standard rate of value added tax is applicable to the supply or rental of oxygen concentrators, while that legislation provides for the application of the reduced value added tax rate on the supply of oxygen cylinders


(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
European Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2017/444 of 9 March 2017 electing the President of the European Council
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Council
Subjects: President of the European Council, appointment of members








L_2017067EN.01008701.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 67/87








            EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2017/444
of 9 March 2017
         
electing the President of the European Council


THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 30 August 2014, by European Council Decision 2014/638/EU (1), Mr Donald TUSK was elected President of the European Council for the period from 1 December 2014 until 31 May 2017.












(2)


In accordance with the Treaty on European Union, the holder of the office of President of the European Council may be re-elected once,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Donald TUSK is hereby re-elected President of the European Council for the period from 1 June 2017 until 30 November 2019.


Article 2
This Decision shall be notified to Mr Donald TUSK by the Secretary-General of the Council.


Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 9 March 2017.


For the European Council


The President

D. TUSK
            





(1)  European Council Decision 2014/638/EU of 30 August 2014 electing the President of the European Council (OJ L 262, 2.9.2014, p. 5).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/425 of 9 March 2017 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the sixth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2017064EN.01010701.xml










10.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 64/107








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/425
of 9 March 2017
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the sixth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.












(2)


In the light of the tenders received for the sixth partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should not be fixed.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the sixth partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 7 March 2017, a minimum selling price has not been fixed.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 9 March 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).
Case T-104/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FOREVER FASTER — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01001901.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/19





Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER)
(Case T-104/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FOREVER FASTER - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))
(2017/C 129/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 (Case R 770/2015-1) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FOREVER FASTER.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016, p. 16.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8221 — Blackstone/OfficeFirst) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing








C_2017073EN.01000201.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8221 — Blackstone/OfficeFirst)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 73/03)
On 2 March 2017, 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 32017M8221. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-323/13: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL — Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fishing industry, recreational fishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01004202.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/42





Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL)
(Case T-323/13) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL - Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 144/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pure Fishing (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1241/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Łabowicz and Pure Fishing.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


The parties shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 April 2017 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017073EN.01000501.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/5





Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 April 2017

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))

(2017/C 73/06)
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basispoints has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basispoints to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 45, 11.2.2017, p. 6.


































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.4.2017


…


-0,08 


-0,08 


0,76 


-0,08 


0,45 


-0,08 


0,16 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 



0,83 




0,44 



-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


1,83 


-0,08 


1,10 


-0,36 


-0,08 


-0,08 


0,78 




1.3.2017


31.3.2017



-0,08 




-0,08 



0,76 



-0,08 



0,45 



-0,08 



0,16 



-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 



1,05 



0,53 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 



1,83 



-0,08 



1,10 


-0,36 



-0,08 




-0,08 



0,78 




1.1.2017


28.2.2017



-0,07 




-0,07 




0,76 




-0,07 




0,45 




-0,07 




0,16 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,05 




0,75 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,83 




-0,07 




1,10 




-0,36 




-0,07 




-0,07 




0,78
Case T-896/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006304.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/63





Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)
(Case T-896/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/99)
Language of the case: German
The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Case T-308/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ClaimsExcellence — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, insurance, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01002001.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/20





Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)
(Case T-308/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ClaimsExcellence - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 129/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Objet

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 (Case R 2358/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ClaimsExcellence as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Marsh GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Case C-100/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Transfer of mines at a price below real market value — Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction — Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, mining operation, selling price, tax exemption, transfer of property








C_2017144EN.01001201.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/12





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission
(Case C-100/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Transfer of mines at a price below real market value - Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction - Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted))
(2017/C 144/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos and I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (T-233/11 and T-262/11, EU:T:2015:948) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to respond to Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s argument based on the purpose for which the expert report on the appraisal of the mines in Cassandra (Greece) had been drawn up during 2004;










2.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










3.


Dismissess Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos AE;










4.


Orders Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case C-484/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order — Concept of ‘court’ — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ — Authentic instrument)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, claim, courts and tribunals, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, notary, official document








C_2017144EN.01000802.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/8





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer
(Case C-484/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ - Authentic instrument))
(2017/C 144/10)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

Defendant: Slaven Gajer

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.










2.


Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8354 — Fox/Sky) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advertising, broadcasting, economic concentration, merger control, publishing








C_2017073EN.01002401.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8354 — Fox/Sky)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 73/14)






1.


On 3 March 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 Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (‘Fox’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Sky plc (‘Sky’, UK) by way of a public bid.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Fox: (i) cable network programming; (ii) television; and (iii) filmed entertainment,
—   for Sky: (i) licensing/acquisition of audiovisual programming; (ii) TV channel wholesale supply; (iii) retailing of audiovisual programming to subscribers; (iv) provision of technical platform services to broadcasters on Sky’s direct-to-home platforms; (v) sale of TV advertising; (vi) provision of fixed-line retail telephony and broadband services; (vii) provision of mobile communications services; and (viii) provision of access to public Wi-Fi hotspots.










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.8354 — Fox/Sky, 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-400/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MAXPLAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01002002.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/20





Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)
(Case T-400/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MAXPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 129/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 2273/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MAXPLAY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Maximum Play, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.