do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-519/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Funding of official controls — Articles 26 and 27 — General taxation — Fees or charges — Charge on retail food outlets)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, approximation of laws, financing, fiscal policy, food inspection, foodstuff, retail trade, veterinary inspection








C_2017309EN.01001501.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/15





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-519/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Funding of official controls - Articles 26 and 27 - General taxation - Fees or charges - Charge on retail food outlets))
(2017/C 309/20)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Superfoz — Supermercados Lda

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 26 and 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition of a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on retail food outlets only, where the revenue from that charge is not used specifically to finance official controls that have been caused by, or that are for the benefit of, those chargeable persons.


(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Case C-182/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, meat product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017309EN.01001002.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/10





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA
(Case C-182/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the relevant public - Independent distinctive role - Dominance - Criteria for assessing visual similarity - Obligation to state reasons))
(2017/C 309/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (represented by G. Ghisletti, F. Braga and P. Pozzi, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case C-80/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(1) — EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme — Free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Validity — Principle of sound administration — Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal — Use of data in the ‘BREF’ for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal — Meaning of ‘similar products’ — Reference installations — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, greenhouse gas, industrial pollution, iron, metallurgical industry, reduction of gas emissions, right to justice, steel, tradeable emission permit








C_2017309EN.01000702.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie
(Case C-80/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(1) - EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Validity - Principle of sound administration - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Use of data in the ‘BREF’ for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal - Meaning of ‘similar products’ - Reference installations - Obligation to state reasons))
(2017/C 309/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine SASU

Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred has revealed nothing that could affect the validity of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.


(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Corrigendum to European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Publication of a vacancy for a Director-General Function (grade AD 15) — Brussels Engagement of a Temporary Agent Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2017/10373 (OJ C 204 A, 28.6.2017)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administrator, competition (EU), job vacancy, managing director, servant (EU)








CA2017241EN.01000101.xml










26.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 241/1





Corrigendum to European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Publication of a vacancy for a Director-General Function (grade AD 15) — Brussels Engagement of a Temporary Agent Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2017/10373
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 204 A of 28 June 2017
)
(2017/C 241 A/01)
On page 5, under ‘Closing date’:

for:‘The closing date for registration is 27 July 2017. Registration will not be possible after 12.00 noon Brussels time.’,

read:‘The closing date for registration is 15 September 2017. Registration will not be possible after 12.00 noon Brussels time.’
Case C-449/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, driving instruction, driving licence, higher education, professional qualifications, secondary education, tax exemption, taxpayer, teaching








C_2017330EN.01000801.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel
(Case C-449/17)
(2017/C 330/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

Questions referred







1.


Does the concept of school or university education in Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax cover driving school tuition to acquire category B and category C1 driving licences?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
Can the applicant be recognised as an organisation with similar objects for the purposes of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax on the basis of the provisions on the driving instructor examination and the issue of a driving instruction and driving school licence in the Law on driving instructors (Gesetz über das Fahrlehrerwesen) of 25 August 1969 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 1969, 1336), last amended by the Law of 28 November 2016 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 2722, Fahrlehrergesetz, Law on driving instructors), and of the public interest in the training of learner drivers to be safe, responsible and environmentally aware road users?










3.


If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:
Does the term ‘tuition given privately by teachers’ contained in Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader?










4.


If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are in the negative:
Is an instructor always providing tuition privately within the meaning of Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if he acts on his own account and at his own risk, or must further requirements be met to qualify as a private teacher?
Case C-517/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 30 — Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass — Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information — Terms of reference of the hearing officer — Decision 2011/695/EU — Article 8 — Confidentiality — Information from a leniency application — Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, confidentiality, equal treatment, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, vehicle parts








C_2017309EN.01000501.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/5





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-517/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Articles 101 and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 30 - Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass - Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information - Terms of reference of the hearing officer - Decision 2011/695/EU - Article 8 - Confidentiality - Information from a leniency application - Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
(2017/C 309/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH (represented by: L. Garzaniti, F. Hoseinian and A. Burckett St Laurent, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, P. Van Nuffel and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case T-470/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, technical education, trade-mark law








C_2017309EN.01003802.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/38





Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)
(Case T-470/17)
(2017/C 309/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sensotek GmbH (Reichenbach an der Fils, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senso Tecnologie Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘sensotek’ — Application for registration No 10 648 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1953/2016-2

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 C-670/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Access to justice in cross-border disputes — Directive 2003/8/EC — Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes — Scope — Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, legal aid, right to justice, translation








C_2017309EN.01000601.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta
(Case C-670/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Access to justice in cross-border disputes - Directive 2003/8/EC - Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes - Scope - Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable))
(2017/C 309/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Jan Šalplachta

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 8 and 12 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, read together, must be interpreted as meaning that legal aid granted by the Member State of the court hearing the particular case, in which a natural person domiciled or resident in another Member State has submitted a legal aid application in the context of a cross-border dispute, also covers the costs paid by that person for the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of that application.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case C-471/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ — Rejection of the opposition — Evidence presented for the first time — Distortion — Genuine use of the earlier trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Article 8(5) — Link between the trade marks to be compared)
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, right to justice, trade-mark law








C_2017309EN.01001401.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/14





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH
(Case C-471/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ - Rejection of the opposition - Evidence presented for the first time - Distortion - Genuine use of the earlier trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Article 8(5) - Link between the trade marks to be compared))
(2017/C 309/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12. 2016.