do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials) (OJ C 364, 3.10.2016, as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, marriage, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit, widowed person








C_2017095EN.01002601.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/26





Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 364 of 3 October 2016
, as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)
(2017/C 095/34)
On page 4, in the table of contents, on page 33 and on page 34, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.
Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission (OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, marriage, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit, widowed person








C_2017095EN.01002602.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/26





Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016
, as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)
(2017/C 095/35)
On page 4, in the table of contents, and on page 28, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.
Case T-194/17: Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Representation of a hip ball)
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01003702.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/37





Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Representation of a hip ball)
(Case T-194/17)
(2017/C 161/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative colour mark in pink (Representation of a hip ball) — EU trade mark No 10 214 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 928/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or, if C5 Medical Werks joins, by the intervener.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 59 and 83 of Regulation No. 207/2009.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/602 of 27 March 2017 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Spain, appointment of members








L_2017082EN.01000801.xml










29.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 82/8








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/602
of 27 March 2017
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. On 18 July 2016, by Council Decision (EU) 2016/1203 (4), Mr Francesc HOMS i MOLIST was replaced by Mr Jordi SOLÉ i FERRANDO as a member.












(2)


A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jordi SOLÉ i FERRANDO,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Ms Maria BADIA i CUTCHET, Secretaria de Asuntos Exteriores y de la Unión Europea de la Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 27 March 2017.


For the Council


The President

C. ABELA
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2016/1203 of 18 July 2016 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 198, 23.7.2016, p. 44).
Case T-725/16: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Palos Caravina v CdT (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Officials — Recruitment — Communication of information concerning the appointment of a third party — Third paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, access to EU information, appointment of staff, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017178EN.01002102.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/21





Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Palos Caravina v CdT
(Case T-725/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Officials - Recruitment - Communication of information concerning the appointment of a third party - Third paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 178/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier and J. Rikkert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of, first, the CdT’s decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to provide the applicant with information concerning the appointment of a third party and, second, the CdT’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against that refusal.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


The Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Maria José Palos Caravina.






(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Council Decision of 27 March 2017 renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cedefop, Portugal, appointment of members, board of directors








C_2017101EN.01000401.xml










31.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/4





COUNCIL DECISION
of 27 March 2017
renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(2017/C 101/06)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Portuguese government,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decisions of 14 July 2015 (2) and of 14 September 2015 (3), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2015 to 17 September 2018.










(2)


A member’s seat is available for Portugal on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Ms Isilda FERNANDES.










(3)


The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2018,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following person is hereby appointed member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of its term of office, which runs until 17 September 2018:
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES:






PORTUGAL


Mr Fernando CATARINO JOSÉ




Article 2
This Decision shall be published, for information, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2017.


For the Council


The President

C. ABELA




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 232, 16.7.2015, p. 2.

(3)  OJ C 305, 16.9.2015, p. 2.
Case C-157/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, establishment, free movement of capital, investment company, investment income, shareholder, tax on income, tax rebate








C_2017168EN.01002701.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-157/17)
(2017/C 168/35)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?










2.


Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax — which is, however, granted to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution — in case this might constitute a hindrance to that fund’s efforts to attract investors living or established in the Netherlands?
Case C-153/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 27 March 2017 — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd
Date: 2017-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, hire purchase, market prices, motor vehicle, overheads, price formation, supply, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2017178EN.01001001.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 27 March 2017 — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd
(Case C-153/17)
(2017/C 178/11)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd

Questions referred







1.


Where general overhead costs attributed to hire purchase transactions (which consist of exempt supplies of finance and taxable supplies of cars), have been incorporated only into the price of the taxable person’s exempt supplies of finance, does the taxable person have a right to deduct any of the input tax on those costs?










2.


What is the proper interpretation of paragraph 31 of Case C-93/98, Midland Bank, and specifically the statement that overhead costs ‘are part of the taxable person’s general costs and are, as such, components of the price of an undertaking’s products’?
In particular:






a)


Should this passage be interpreted to mean that a Member State must always attribute some input tax to every supply in any special method adopted under Article 173(2)(c) of the Directive (1)?










b)


Is this the case even if the factual circumstances are that the overhead costs are not incorporated in the price of taxable supplies made by the undertaking?














3.


Does the fact that the overhead costs have been actually used, at least to some extent, in making taxable supplies of cars,






a)


entail that some proportion of the input tax on those costs must be deductible?










b)


Is this the case even if the factual circumstances are that overhead costs are not incorporated in the price of the taxable supplies of cars?














4.


Can it be legitimate in principle to ignore the taxable supplies of cars (or their value) for the purposes of arriving at a special method under Article 173(2)(c) of the Directive?






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