do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-159/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2017 — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Fizice
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, national law, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017221EN.01000501.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2017 — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Fizice
(Case C-159/17)
(2017/C 221/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

Respondents: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Fizice

Question referred

Must Articles 167, 168, 169, 179, 213(1), 214(1)(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, requires a taxpayer, whose registration for VAT purposes has been revoked, to pay to the State the VAT collected during the period in which the VAT identification code was revoked, without, however, recognising his right to deduct the VAT relating to purchases made during that period?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/605 of 29 March 2017 amending Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: aircraft, chemical compound, chemical product, environmental standard, fire protection, safety device, stratospheric pollutant, stratospheric pollution








L_2017084EN.01000301.xml










30.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 84/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2017/605
of 29 March 2017
         
amending Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 establishes cut-off dates after which halons should not be used for fire extinguishers and fire protection systems in ‘new equipment’, including in new aircraft. Pursuant to point 2(b) of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, the definition of ‘new equipment’ depends on the date of submission of a request for type certification to the appropriate regulatory authority.












(2)


For reasons of legal clarity and consistency in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, it is necessary to specify in the definition of ‘new equipment’ under point 2(b) of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 that for aircraft, request for type certification relates only to request for new type certification and does not cover changes to an existing type certification. This would also be in line with the concept used for halon standards by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.












(3)


Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In point 2(b) of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009, the following second sentence is added:


                  ‘For aircraft, submission of a request for type certification refers to a submission of a request for a new aircraft type certification.’
               



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, 29 March 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, p. 1.
Case T-199/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: personal data, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2017161EN.01003801.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/38





Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO
(Case T-199/17)
(2017/C 161/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: QD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of EUIPO of 2 June 2016, notified to the applicant on 3 June 2016, to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a temporary Agent pursuant to Article 2(f) CEOS; and










—


order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Article 110 SR, Article 2(f) and 8 CEOS.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty and its duty of care.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR)).










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27(1) and (2)(b).










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the legitimate expectations of the applicant.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 008, 2001, p. 1)
Case T-389/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark J&JOY — Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Assessment criteria — Composite mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017151EN.01003102.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/31





Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY)
(Case T-389/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark J&JOY - Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Assessment criteria - Composite mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 151/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua, C. Pirenne and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1355/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Case T-200/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, equal treatment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of a contract, work contract








C_2017178EN.01002901.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/29





Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
(Case T-200/17)
(2017/C 178/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SB (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2016 by which the applicant was refused a second renewal of her contract and against the rejection by the Executive Director of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 of the applicant’s complaint of 1 September 2016;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the breach of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union as a result of the application of the defendant’s internal rules which equate officials and temporary agents with indefinite contracts. Moreover, by differentiating between temporary agents with fixed-term contracts and temporary agents with contracts concluded for an indefinite period, the defendant infringes the Staff Regulations and, in the case at hand, the principle of equal treatment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the lack of reasoning or illegal, contradictory and insufficient reasoning.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the duty of care owed to staff.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on the grounds of age as a result of the application by the defendant of a staff policy aimed at reducing the average age of the staff population.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/607 of 29 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2017084EN.01000601.xml










30.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 84/6








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/607
of 29 March 2017
         
amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1).












(2)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 31 March 2018.












(3)


Decision 2011/173/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The second paragraph of Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 31 March 2018.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 29 March 2017.


For the Council


The President

L. GRECH
            





(1)  Council Decision 2011/173/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 68).
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 as regards the territorial typologies (Tercet)’ [COM(2016) 788 final — 2016/0393 (COD)]
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU statistics, administrative unit, classification, data collection, regional statistics, statistical method, statistical nomenclature








C_2017209EN.01007101.xml










30.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/71





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 as regards the territorial typologies (Tercet)’
[COM(2016) 788 final — 2016/0393 (COD)]
(2017/C 209/13)






Consultation


Council of the European Union, 25.1.2017




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted at plenary


29.3.2017




Plenary session No


524




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


223/1/4




Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)’ adopted on 11 July 2001 (1), it decided, at its 524th plenary session of 29 and 30 March 2017 (meeting of 29 March 2017), by 223 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 29 March 2017.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS




(1)  OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, p. 57.
Case T-638/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ALCOLOCK — United Kingdom word mark ALCOLOCK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark)
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcohol, registered trade mark, road safety, safety device, trade-mark law








C_2017151EN.01003302.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/33





Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)
(Case T-638/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ALCOLOCK - United Kingdom word mark ALCOLOCK - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark))
(2017/C 151/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: E. Baud and P. Marchiset, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lion Laboratories Ltd (Barry, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 1323/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lion Laboratories and Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8342 — Mitsubishi Chemical Group/PTT Public Company Group/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2017098EN.01000102.xml










29.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8342 — Mitsubishi Chemical Group/PTT Public Company Group/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 98/02)
On 23 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 32017M8342. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-198/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — EKETA v European Commission
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, biometrics, claim, expenditure, financial aid, information technology applications, reimbursement of aid, research project, scientific research








C_2017151EN.01004701.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/47





Action brought on 29 March 2017 — EKETA v European Commission
(Case T-198/17)
(2017/C 151/60)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 38 241,00 of the payment received by it for the ACTIBIO project, that request being made in the debit note3241615335/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 9 353,56;










—


declare that the sum of EUR 9 353,56 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615335/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the ACTIBIO project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the ACTIBIO project, a sum of EUR 38 241,00. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.










2.


In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 9 353,56 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.










3.


ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 9 353,56 constitutes eligible staff costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.
Case C-158/17 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2017-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Chile, EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2017382EN.01002601.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/26





Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-158/17 P)
(2017/C 382/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: P. Koch, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 20 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.