do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-193/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society — Present and genuine threat — Concept — Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences)
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, child protection, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, imprisonment, public health, public order, removal, sexual offence








C_2017293EN.01000901.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava
(Case C-193/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) - Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health - Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security - Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society - Present and genuine threat - Concept - Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences))
(2017/C 293/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person is imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future, does not exclude that his conduct represents, as the case may be, a present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of the society of the host Member State.


(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Case T-150/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark ECOLAB — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, research, technology, testing, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2017283EN.01003902.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/39





Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)
(Case T-150/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark ECOLAB - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and C. Menebröcker, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 644/2015-4) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ECOLAB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8454 — KKR/Pelican Rouge) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: automatic vending machine, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2017224EN.01001901.xml










13.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8454 — KKR/Pelican Rouge)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 224/10)






1.


On 5 July 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 Selecta AG (‘Selecta’, Switzerland), indirectly solely controlled by KKR Co. L.P. (‘KKR’, United States), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Pelican Rouge B.V. (‘Pelican Rouge’, Netherlands), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KKR: global investment firm offering a range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and other clients,
—   for Selecta: provision of vending services in Europe in both public and private settings, such as the sale or lease of vending machines, the sale of consumables used to stock vending machines and other related supplies, as well as stocking and maintenance of vending machines, for both food and beverage vending,
—   for Pelican Rouge: supply, installation and operation of vending equipment and beverage systems and provision of vending ingredients in Europe.










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.8454 — KKR/Pelican Rouge, 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 C-423/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Staat der Nederlanden v Warner-Lambert Company LLC
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, generic drug, labelling, market approval, patent








C_2017318EN.01000801.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Staat der Nederlanden v Warner-Lambert Company LLC
(Case C-423/17)
(2017/C 318/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden

Defendant: Warner-Lambert Company LLC

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 11 of Directive 2001/83 (1) or any other provision of European Union law be interpreted as meaning that a communication whereby the marketing authorisation applicant or holder for a generic medicine, within the meaning of Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, notifies the authority that he is not including in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the package leaflet those parts of the Summary of Product Characteristics for the reference medicine which refer to indications or dosage forms covered by the patent right of a third party, should be considered as a request to limit the marketing authorisation which must result in the marketing authorisation not applying, or no longer applying, to the patented indications or dosage forms?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, do Articles 11 and 21(3) of Directive 2001/83 or any other provisions of EU law preclude the competent authority from making public, by means of an authorisation granted under Article 6 in conjunction with Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the package leaflet, including those parts which refer to indications or dosage forms which fall under the patent rights of a third party, in a situation where the marketing authorisation applicant or holder has notified the authority that he is not including in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the package leaflet those parts of the Summary of Product Characteristics for the reference medicine which refer to indications or dosage forms covered by the patent right of a third party?










3.


Does it make any difference to the answer to question 2 that the competent authority requires the authorisation holder to include in the package leaflet which the authorisation holder must insert in the packaging of the medicine a reference to the authority’s website on which the Summary of Product Characteristics is published, including the parts which refer to indications or dosage forms covered by the patent rights of a third party, whereas those parts, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2001/83, are not included in the package leaflet?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Case C-701/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Transport — Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ — Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC — National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport)
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, award of contract, business location, carrier, tendering








C_2017293EN.01000401.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/4





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA
(Case C-701/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Transport - Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ - Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC - National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport))
(2017/C 293/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

Intervening party: Beta-Trans SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not require a public selection procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation, including a temporary allocation, of areas within airports to be used for the provision of groundhandling services for which no remuneration is to be paid by the manager of the airport.


(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Case C-421/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, public limited company, real property, redemption, share, shareholder, transfer of property








C_2017357EN.01000301.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno
(Case C-421/17)
(2017/C 357/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno

Question referred

Does the transfer by a public limited company of immovable property to a shareholder in connection with the redemption of its shares constitute a transaction that is subject to value added tax in accordance with Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)



(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.