do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-595/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com (eBizcuss)
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, damages, distributor, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, private international law, supplier, territorial jurisdiction








C_2017437EN.01002101.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com (eBizcuss)
(Case C-595/17)
(2017/C 437/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL

Defendants: MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com (eBizcuss)

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as allowing a national court before which an action for damages has been brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to apply a jurisdiction clause set out in the contract binding the parties?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as allowing a national court before which an action for damages has been brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to apply a jurisdiction clause set out in the contract binding the parties, including in cases where that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred from an infringement of competition law?










3.


Must Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as allowing a national court before which an action for damages has been brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to disregard a jurisdiction clause set out in the contract binding the parties where no infringement of competition law has been?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case C-597/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie and Others
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, aesthetic surgery, infringement of EU law, jurisdiction ratione materiae, medical device, pharmaceutical product, practitioner of alternative medicine, professional association, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2018022EN.01001902.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie and Others
(Case C-597/17)
(2018/C 022/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries, Belgische Unie van Osteopaten and Others, Plast.Surg. and Others, Belgian Society for Private Clinics and Others

Other party: Ministerraad

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that that provision reserves the exemption to which it refers, in the case of both conventional and non-conventional practices, to practitioners of a medical or a paramedical profession that is subject to national legislation governing the healthcare professions and who meet the requirements laid down by that national legislation, and that persons who do not meet those requirements, but who are affiliated to a professional association of chiropractors or osteopaths and who meet the requirements laid down by that association, are excluded from that exemption?










2.


Should Article 132(1)(b), (c) and (e), Article 134 and Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with points 3 and 4 of Annex III to that directive, in particular from the point of view of the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as meaning:






(a)


that they preclude a national provision which provides for a reduced rate of VAT to be applicable to medicinal products and medical aids supplied in connection with an operation or treatment of a therapeutic nature, whereas medicinal products and medical aids supplied in connection with an operation or treatment of a purely aesthetic nature, and closely related thereto, are subject to the normal rate of VAT;










(b)


or that they permit or require equal treatment of both the aforementioned cases?














3.


Is there an obligation on the Constitutional Court to maintain, on a temporary basis, the effects of the … provisions to be annulled, as well as those of the provisions which, if necessary, must be annulled in whole or in part, if it follows from the answer to the first or the second question to be referred that those provisions are contrary to EU law, in order to enable the legislature to bring them into line with EU law?






(1)  OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1.
Case C-596/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: assessment of prices, excise duty, free price, packaged product, packaging product, selling price, tobacco








C_2017437EN.01002201.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé
(Case C-596/17)
(2017/C 437/26)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive [2011]/64/EU of 21 June 2011 (1) be interpreted, as regards the definitions of tobacco products set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 thereof, as also governing the price of packaged tobacco products?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 15 of Directive 2011/64/EU, in laying down the principle that the price of tobacco products must be determined freely, be interpreted as prohibiting a rule setting the price of those products per 1 000 items or 1 000 grams which, in effect, prohibits manufacturers of tobacco products from adjusting their prices on the basis of potential differences in the cost of packaging those products?






(1)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea apply
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








CI2017346EN.01000301.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 346/3





Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea apply
(2017/C 346 I/02)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1509.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1865 of 16 October 2017 approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication [Vacqueyras (PDO)]
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Rhône-Alpes, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, still wine, white wine








L_2017266EN.01000501.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 266/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1865
of 16 October 2017
         
approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication [Vacqueyras (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission examined France's application pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Vacqueyras’.












(2)


The Commission published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Vacqueyras’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


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, 16 October 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 206, 30.6.2017, p. 9.
Case C-598/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 16 October 2017 — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, free movement of capital, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2018022EN.01002001.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 16 October 2017 — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
(Case C-598/17)
(2018/C 022/30)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A-Fonds

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Questions referred







1)


Is the extension of the scope of an existing system of aid as a result of a taxable person successfully invoking the right to the free movement of capital as laid down in Article 56 of the EC Treaty (now: Article 63 TFEU) to be regarded as a new system of aid resulting from an alteration to existing aid?










2)


If so, does the task to be performed by the national court under Article 108(3) TFEU preclude the taxable person from being granted a tax advantage which that taxable person claims under Article 56 of the EC Treaty (now: Article 63 TFEU), or should a proposed judicial decision to grant that advantage be notified to the Commission, or should the national court take any other action or implement any other measure, in view of the supervisory task assigned to it under Article 108(3) TFEU?
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1862 of 16 October 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: import (EU), organic product, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, third country








L_2017266EN.01000101.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 266/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1862
of 16 October 2017
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), and in particular Article 38(d) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 (2) provides for a period for the control bodies and control authorities to submit their request for recognition for the purpose of the import of compliant products in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. As the implementation of the provisions regarding the import of compliant products is still under assessment and the related guidelines, models, questionnaires and the necessary electronic transmission system are still under development, the deadline for the submission of requests by control bodies and control authorities should be extended.












(2)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on organic production,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008, the date ‘31 October 2017’ is replaced by ‘31 October 2018’.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh 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, 16 October 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ L 334, 12.12.2008, p. 25).
Case C-599/17: Action brought on 16 October 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data transmission, dissemination of information, exchange of information, financial instrument, infringement of EU law, insider trading, national implementing measure, prevention of delinquency, restriction on competition, stock-exchange transaction








C_2018005EN.01002301.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/23





Action brought on 16 October 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-599/17)
(2018/C 005/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Rius and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt, before 3 July 2016, the laws, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 of 17 December 2015 on Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) as regards reporting to competent authorities of actual or potential infringements of that Regulation, (2) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that Directive;










—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 into national law expired on 3 July 2016.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (OJ 2014, L 173, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2015, L 332, p. 126.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1864 of 16 October 2017 approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (Rosé des Riceys (PDO))
Date: 2017-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Champagne-Ardenne, France, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, rosé wine, still wine








L_2017266EN.01000401.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 266/4








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1864
of 16 October 2017
         
approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (Rosé des Riceys (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission examined France's application pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Rosé des Riceys’.












(2)


The Commission published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Rosé des Riceys’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


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, 16 October 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 200, 23.6.2017, p. 4.