do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-339/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — European Commission implementing decision — Notification to the addressee — Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU Official Journal, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, implementing decision, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2017239EN.01001801.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/18





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
(Case C-339/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 239/23)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/837 of 17 May 2017 correcting the Polish and Swedish language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: air safety, civil aviation, harmonisation of standards, safety standard








L_2017125EN.01000301.xml










18.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/837
of 17 May 2017
         
correcting the Polish and Swedish language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security
(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 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Polish language version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 (2) contains an error in point 11.4.3(a) of the Annex as regards the list of competencies requiring recurrent training at specific intervals.












(2)


The Swedish language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 contains errors in the Annex, namely in points 8.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3 as regards the requirement of a renewed screening; in point 8.3.1 as regards the object of the delivery obligation; in the first paragraph of point 9.1.3.5(b) as regards the scope of the validation method; in point 9.3.1 as regards the object of the delivery obligation; and in the introductory phrase of point 11.2.3.1 as regards persons covered by the training obligation.












(3)


The Polish and Swedish language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(does not concern the English language)



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, 17 May 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 97, 9.4.2008, p. 72.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 of 5 November 2015 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (OJ L 299, 14.11.2015, p. 1).
Case C-264/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2017 — Harry Mensing v Finanzamt Hamm
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, supply, tax relief, taxpayer, work of art








C_2017283EN.01001701.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2017 — Harry Mensing v Finanzamt Hamm
(Case C-264/17)
(2017/C 283/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Harry Mensing

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamm

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that taxable dealers may apply the margin scheme also to the supply of works of art supplied to the taxable dealer within the Community by their creators or their successors in title where such creators or successors in title are not persons referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does Article 322(b) of Directive 2006/112 require that the dealer be denied the right to deduct input tax paid on the intra-Community acquisition of works of art, even if there is no equivalent provision under national law?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-519/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piessevaux v Council (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights to the European Union pension scheme — Proposal concerning the crediting of additional pensionable years — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — New general implementing provisions — Equal treatment — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights, working time








C_2017231EN.01002202.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/22





Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piessevaux v Council
(Case T-519/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights to the European Union pension scheme - Proposal concerning the crediting of additional pensionable years - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - New general implementing provisions - Equal treatment - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations))
(2017/C 231/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vincent Piessevaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, then by J.-N. Louis, and finally by L. Ponteville, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 7 October 2013 definitively fixing, for the purposes of the European Union pension scheme, the pension rights acquired by the applicant following the transfer of the rights which he had acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, from national pension bodies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Vincent Piessevaux to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-91/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case C-267/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2017 — Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Heinsberg
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, carriage of passengers, local authority, public service, service concession, services contract, services of general interest, subsidiary








C_2017269EN.01000301.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2017 — Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Heinsberg
(Case C-267/17)
(2017/C 269/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Kreis Heinsberg

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) applicable to directly awarded public service contracts within the meaning of Article 2(i) of the regulation which do not, for the purposes of the second sentence of Article 5(1) of the regulation, take the form of service concessions contracts under Directives 2004/17/EC or 2004/18/EC?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Do Article 2(b) and Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 presume, as is conveyed by the word ‘or’, an exclusive competence either of an individual authority or of a group of authorities, or do those provisions also permit an individual authority to be a member of a group of authorities and to assign specific tasks to the group but at the same time to retain the power to intervene under Article 2(b) and to be the competent local authority within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the regulation?










3.


Does point (e) of the second sentence of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, which lays down the requirement to perform the major part of the public passenger transport service itself, prevent the internal operator from having that major part of the services performed by a wholly-owned subsidiary?










4.


At what point in time must the conditions governing direct awards laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 be met: at the time of publication of an intended direct award pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 or not until the time of the direct award itself?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/922 of 17 May 2017 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Traditional Welsh Perry (PGI))
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, Wales, alcoholic beverage, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2017140EN.01000301.xml










31.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 140/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/922
of 17 May 2017
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Traditional Welsh Perry (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the United Kingdom's application to register the name ‘Traditional Welsh Perry’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Traditional Welsh Perry’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Traditional Welsh Perry’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 17 May 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 29, 28.1.2017, p. 32.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8463 — CPPIB/PSPIB/Waiheke) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2017154EN.01000101.xml










17.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8463 — CPPIB/PSPIB/Waiheke)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 154/01)
On 3 May 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 32017M8463. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8446 — ELO/AP1/Real Estate Portfolio in Finland) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing, supplementary pension








C_2017154EN.01000201.xml










17.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8446 — ELO/AP1/Real Estate Portfolio in Finland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 154/03)
On 3 May 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 32017M8446. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-338/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — European Commission implementing decision — Notification to the addressee — Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU Official Journal, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, implementing decision, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2017239EN.01001702.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/17





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
(Case C-338/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 239/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in Croatia (05318/2017 — C8-0033/2017 — 2017/0801(CNS))
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Croatia, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, exchange of information, information system, personal data, vehicle registration








C_2018307EN.01020001.xml










30.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/200






P8_TA(2017)0212
Automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in Croatia *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in Croatia (05318/2017 — C8-0033/2017 — 2017/0801(CNS))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 307/37)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (05318/2017),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0033/2017),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0171/2017),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.
Case T-300/17: Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, pneumatic machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004401.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/44





Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)
(Case T-300/17)
(2017/C 231/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘3000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 119

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 653/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.