do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-171/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01005701.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/57





Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)
(Case T-171/17)
(2017/C 144/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: M & K Srl (Prato, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Genfoot, Inc. (Montreal, Québec, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KIMIKA’ — Application for registration No 13 233 391

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2017 in Case R 1206/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the applicant is admissible and well founded; and consequently










—


reform the contested decision;










—


send the case back to EUIPO for a reforming decision and therefore give way to a definitive registration of the EU trade mark No 13 233 391 even in the classes contested;










—


condemn the counterpart to pay fees and costs of the three proceeding.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


The Board of Appeal erred when it assessed the risk of confusion between the trade marks.
Case T-152/12: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Aid granted to Deutsche Post by the German authorities — Increase in the cost of stamps combined with subsidies paid in order to cover the pension costs of employees engaged as officials — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, pension scheme, postal charges, postal service, universal service








C_2017178EN.01001501.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/15





Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Deutsche Post v Commission
(Case T-152/12) (1)

((State aid - Postal sector - Aid granted to Deutsche Post by the German authorities - Increase in the cost of stamps combined with subsidies paid in order to cover the pension costs of employees engaged as officials - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 178/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: initially by E. Henny and T. Ottervanger, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 4 and 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG.










3.


UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 52/2017 of 17 March 2017 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1816]
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, animal product, cattle, consumer protection, food safety, goat, revision of an agreement, sheep, veterinary legislation, veterinary medicinal product




L_2018305EN.01001701.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 305/17








            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
         
No 52/2017
of 17 March 2017
         
amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1816]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1834 of 17 October 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as regards the substance monepantel (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:




Article 1

The following indent is added in point 13 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:






‘—



32016 R 1834: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1834 of 17 October 2016 (OJ L 280, 18.10.2016, p. 22).’







Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1834 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.



Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 18 March 2017, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).



Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 17 March 2017.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Claude MAERTEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 280, 18.10.2016, p. 22.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 67/2017 of 17 March 2017 amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1831]
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: EU statistics, European Economic Area, data collection, employment statistics, family, parental leave, revision of an agreement, technical specification, working life, working population




L_2018305EN.01003401.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 305/34








            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
         
No 67/2017
of 17 March 2017
         
amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1831]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2236 of 12 December 2016 specifying the technical characteristics of the 2018 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:




Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 18av (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/8) of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement:







‘18aw.



32016 R 2236: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2236 of 12 December 2016 specifying the technical characteristics of the 2018 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life (OJ L 337, 13.12.2016, p. 6).’








Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2236 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.



Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 18 March 2017, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).



Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 17 March 2017.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Claude MAERTEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 337, 13.12.2016, p. 6.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8380 — CPPIB/Apax/GL) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2017082EN.01000101.xml










17.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8380 — CPPIB/Apax/GL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 82/01)
On 7 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 32017M8380. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-384/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017144EN.01006302.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/63





Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council
(Case T-384/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/97)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 3
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: European Commission, Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, executive agency, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2017084EN.01011201.xml










17.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/112





Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 3
(2017/C 84/23)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2016


Amending budget No 3


New amount





2




COMMISSION SUBSIDY





2 0


COMMISSION SUBSIDY


35 848 913 


 


35 848 913 




 



Title 2 — Total




35 848 913 



 



35 848 913 






9




MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE





9 0


MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 9 — Total




p.m.



 



p.m.





 



GRAND TOTAL




35 848 913 



 



35 848 913 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2016


Amending budget No 3


New amount





1




STAFF EXPENDITURE





1 1


REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES


26 235 673 


90 814 


26 326 487 




1 2


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE


1 527 415 


72 000 


1 599 415 




 



Title 1 — Total




27 763 088 




162 814 




27 925 902 






2




INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 1


BUILDING EXPENDITURE


1 773 000 


 


1 773 000 




2 2


ICT EXPENDITURE


1 636 000 


151 000 


1 787 000 




2 3


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS


351 500 


– 125 500 


226 000 




 



Title 2 — Total




3 760 500 




25 500 




3 786 000 






3




PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE





3 1


PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE


4 325 325 


– 188 314 


4 137 011 




 



Title 3 — Total




4 325 325 




– 188 314 




4 137 011 





 



GRAND TOTAL




35 848 913 



 



35 848 913
Case C-140/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, investment, municipality, tax relief








C_2017202EN.01001001.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo
(Case C-140/17)
(2017/C 202/16)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: Gmina Ryjewo

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Articles 167, 168 and 184 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of neutrality, does a municipality have the right to deduct (by effecting an adjustment) input tax on its investment expenditure in the case where:






—


in the initial period after production (acquisition), the capital goods were used for the purposes of a non-taxable area of activity (in connection with the municipality’s performance of the tasks of a public authority within its area of responsibility); and










—


the use to which the capital goods are put has changed and they will in future be used by the municipality also to carry out taxable transactions?














2.


Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the capital goods were produced or acquired, the municipality’s intention to use those goods in future to carry out taxable transactions was not indicated clearly?










3.


Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that the capital goods will be used for the purpose of carrying out both taxable and non-taxable transactions (in connection with the performance of the tasks of a public authority) and that it is not possible to ascribe specific investment expenditure to one of the abovementioned transaction categories?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8120 — Hapag-Lloyd/United Arab Shipping Company) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, maritime shipping, merger control








C_2017082EN.01000102.xml










17.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8120 — Hapag-Lloyd/United Arab Shipping Company)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 82/02)
On 23 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32016M8120. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-383/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, trade restriction








C_2017178EN.01003304.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/33





Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
(Case T-383/16) (1)

(2017/C 178/51)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 53/2017 of 17 March 2017 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1817]
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, animal welfare, chemical product, decontamination, market approval, pharmaceutical product, revision of an agreement




L_2018305EN.01001801.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 305/18








            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
         
No 53/2017
of 17 March 2017
         
amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1817]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1936 of 4 November 2016 approving calcium oxide (burnt lime) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 3 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:




Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 12zzzzg (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1950) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:







‘12zzzzh.



32016 R 1936: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1936 of 4 November 2016 approving calcium oxide (burnt lime) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 3 (OJ L 299, 5.11.2016, p. 48).’








Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1936 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.



Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 18 March 2017, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).



Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 17 March 2017.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Claude MAERTEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 299, 5.11.2016, p. 48.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.
Case T-179/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01005901.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/59





Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)
(Case T-179/17)
(2017/C 144/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain), Jean Yves Tariot (Alicante, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NYOUX’ — Application for registration No 12 931 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 in Case R 718/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-381/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, information technology industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017195EN.01002802.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/28





Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)
(Case T-381/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 195/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Klaus Düll (Südergellersen, Germany) (represented by: S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cognitect, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2), concerning cancellation proceedings between Cognitect, Inc. and Klaus Düll.

Operative part of the order







1)


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










2)


Klaus Düll and Cognitect, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.