do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-502/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from Vestre Landsret (Denmark) dated 18 August 2017, C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business management, consultancy, information technology, parent company, provision of services, sale, shareholding, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2017347EN.01002002.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from Vestre Landsret (Denmark) dated 18 August 2017, C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-502/17)
(2017/C 347/27)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring Court

Vestre Landsret

Parter


Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred







1)


Should Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a holding company, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is entitled to a full deduction of VAT on input services related to due diligence investigations before an envisaged, but not completed, sale of shares in a subsidiary to which the holding company supplies management and IT services that are subject to VAT?










2)


Is the answer to the above question affected by the fact that the price for the VAT taxable management and IT services, which the holding company supplies for the purposes of its economic activity, is a fixed amount corresponding to the holding company’s expenditure on employees’ salaries, with the addition of a ‘mark-up’ of 10 %?










3)


Irrespective of the answer to the foregoing questions, can a right of deduction exist if the consultancy costs at issue in the main proceedings are regarded as general costs, and if so, on what conditions?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)
Case T-565/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, computer equipment, data processing, hotel industry, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2017347EN.01004501.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/45





Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
(Case T-565/17)
(2017/C 347/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Momondo Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cheapflights’ — Application for registration No 3 485 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1893/2011-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and Momondo Group Limited, if it should intervene in these proceedings to bear the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 64(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96;










—


The contested decision is replete with statements which question or directly negate the validity of the Applicant’s trademarks. The contested decision is detrimental to the interests of the Applicant as proprietor of validly registered trade mark which are not even subject to the jurisdiction of the Defendant.
Case C-505/17 P: Appeal brought on 18 August 2017 by Groupe Léa Nature against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 June 2017 in Case T-341/13 RENV: Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017437EN.01001501.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/15





Appeal brought on 18 August 2017 by Groupe Léa Nature against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 June 2017 in Case T-341/13 RENV: Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-505/17 P)
(2017/C 437/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Groupe Léa Nature (represented by: E. Baud, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Debonair Trading Internacional Lda

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment rendered by the General Court on June 8, 2017;










—


refer the case back to the General Court; and










—


order Debonair to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law pertaining to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the marks.
In support of this plea the appellant claims that the General Court did not:






—


apply the relevant criteria required to determine the relevant public;










—


assess correctly the similarities between the signs;










—


properly apply the relevant requirements susceptible to assess the acquisition of a distinctive character through use; and










—


validly proceed with an analysis of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.




Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(5) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law rendered in relation to uses detrimental to the repute of an earlier mark.
In support of this plea, the appellant claims that the General Court did not:






—


apply all the criteria required to establish the reputation of an earlier mark;










—


assess correctly the similarities between the signs;










—


proceed with a valid analysis of the existence of a link that the relevant public may make between the marks; and










—


properly assess the detrimental effect that the use of a trademark application is susceptible to have on the repute of an earlier mark.
Case C-500/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Thomas Krauss v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, traveller








C_2018005EN.01001701.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Thomas Krauss v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-500/17)
(2018/C 005/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Krauss

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
By order of 28 September 2017, the Court removed the case from its Register.
Case C-501/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, transport regulations








C_2017392EN.01001302.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels
(Case C-501/17)
(2017/C 392/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

Respondent: Wolfgang Pauels

Question referred

Is the damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a screw lying on the take-off or landing runway (foreign object damage/FOD) an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8592 — Centerbridge/EGPH/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy production, gas supply, investment company, merger control, power plant, wind energy








C_2017273EN.01000401.xml










18.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8592 — Centerbridge/EGPH/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 273/04)






1.


On 10 August 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings CCP Credit Acquisition Holdings Luxco S.à.r.l. (‘Centerbridge Luxco 1’) and CSCP III Acquisition Luxco S.à.r.l. (‘Centerbridge Luxco 2’) (both of Luxembourg), indirectly controlled by a number of investment funds, all managed by affiliates of Centerbridge Partners, L.P. (‘Centerbridge Partners’), ultimately controlled by two private individuals and Enel Green Power Hellas S.A. (‘EGPH’, Greece) belonging to the Enel Group (Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created undertaking constituting a Joint Venture (the ‘JV’, Greece) by purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Centerbridge Partners is an investment management firm focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities,










—


EGPH is controlled by the Enel Group of companies, the ultimate parent company of the group being Enel S.p.A. Enel Group is an Italian multinational active in the production and distribution of electricity and gas in the EEA and worldwide,










—


The JV does not yet carry out any business activity. Its object is to build seven wind farms at Kafireas (Euboea) in Greece.














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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.8592 — Centerbridge/EGPH/JV, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8530 — Brookfield/Engie/FHHGL) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, gas industry, merger control, power plant








C_2017273EN.01000101.xml










18.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8530 — Brookfield/Engie/FHHGL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 273/01)
On 14 August 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 32017M8530. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-564/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Tong Myong/Council and Commission
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: North Korea, data protection, economic sanctions, equal treatment, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, restorative justice, right of establishment, rights of the defence








C_2017338EN.01001901.xml










9.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/19





Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Tong Myong/Council and Commission
(Case T-564/17)
(2017/C 338/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: So Tong Myong (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures;










—


order the defendants to pay the applicant’s 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 that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to provide him with the evidence on which they rely before re-listing the applicant.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017273EN.01000201.xml










18.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 August 2017
(2017/C 273/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1697 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,81 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4354 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90895 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5088 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1311 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3243 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,012 




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,05 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2575 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5848 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1197 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4756 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4767 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1517 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6013 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5978 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,95 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4425 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8110 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4042 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 620,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0244 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,048 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4730 




THB


Thai baht


38,893 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6986 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7198 




INR


Indian rupee


75,0595 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.