do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)piperidin-4-yl]furan-2-carboxamide (furanylfentanyl) to control measures (11212/2017 — C8-0242/2017 — 2017/0152(NLE))
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU control, drug addiction, drug traffic, health control, health risk, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, toxicology, tranquiliser








C_2018346EN.01025301.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/253






P8_TA(2017)0389
Subjecting furanylfentanyl to control measures *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)piperidin-4-yl]furan-2-carboxamide (furanylfentanyl) to control measures (11212/2017 — C8-0242/2017 — 2017/0152(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 346/44)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (11212/2017),










—


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 (C8-0242/2017),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (1), and in particular Article 8(3) 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 (A8-0309/2017),












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 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32.
Case C-701/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, higher court, human rights, jurisdiction, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2018142EN.01002101.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/21





Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-701/17 P)
(2018/C 142/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Vassil Monev Valkov (represented by: K. Mladenova, адвокат)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights, Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
By order of 22 February 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (15653/2016 — C8-0094/2017 — 2006/0048(NLE))
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), Morocco, Union for the Mediterranean, agreement (EU), air transport, ratification of an agreement








C_2018346EN.01024701.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/247






P8_TA(2017)0386
EU-Morocco Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (15653/2016 — C8-0094/2017 — 2006/0048(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 346/41)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council Decision (15653/2016),










—


having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Kingdom of Morocco, on the other hand (1)











—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0094/2017),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0303/2017),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdom of Morocco.






(1)  OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 57.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8640 — CVC/Blackstone/Paysafe) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, electronic money, investment company, management, merger control, provision of services








C_2017358EN.01000801.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8640 — CVC/Blackstone/Paysafe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 358/09)






1.


On 16 October 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’, Luxembourg),










—


Blackstone Group LP (‘Blackstone’, United States),










—


Paysafe Group PLC (‘Paysafe’, United Kingdom),




CVC and Blackstone acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Paysafe.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 4 August 2017.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   CVC: provision of advice to and management of investment funds and platforms,
—   Blackstone: a global alternative asset manager,
—   Paysafe: provision of online and mobile payment processing services.










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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8640 — CVC/Blackstone/Paysafe
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax: +32 22964301




Postal 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-474/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar — France) — Criminal proceedings against Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG and Stefan Nikless (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Applicable legislation — A1 certificate — Probative value)
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, temporary employment








C_2018005EN.01001501.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/15





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar — France) — Criminal proceedings against Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG and Stefan Nikless
(Case C-474/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Applicable legislation - A1 certificate - Probative value))
(2018/C 005/20)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Colmar

Parties to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

Interveners: Syndicat Prism’emploi, Union départementale CGT du Bas-Rhin and Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (Urssaf), assuming the rights of the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin

Operative part of the order

Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate, issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State under Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the work is carried out and the courts of that Member State, even where it is found by those courts that the conditions under which the worker concerned carries out his activities clearly do not come within the material scope of that provision of Regulation No 883/2004.


(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision No 189/2014/EU authorising France to apply a reduced rate of certain indirect taxes on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion and repealing Decision No 2007/659/EC (COM(2017)0297 — C8-0212/2017 — 2017/0127(CNS))
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, derogation from EU law, excise duty, originating product, spirits, tax relief








C_2018346EN.01024801.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/248






P8_TA(2017)0387
Authorising France to apply a reduced rate of certain indirect taxes on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2017 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision No 189/2014/EU authorising France to apply a reduced rate of certain indirect taxes on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion and repealing Decision No 2007/659/EC (COM(2017)0297 — C8-0212/2017 — 2017/0127(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2018/C 346/42)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2017)0297),










—


having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0212/2017),










—


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










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0304/2017),












1.


Approves the Commission proposal;












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, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Case C-612/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Federazione Italiana Golf (FIG) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, administrative supervision, legal status, non-profit organisation, sports body








C_2018022EN.01002301.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Federazione Italiana Golf (FIG) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
(Case C-612/17)
(2018/C 022/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Federazione Italiana Golf (FIG)

Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred







1.


Must the concept of ‘public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ referred to in Paragraph 20.15 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (1) (‘the ESA 2010’) be understood broadly as covering also the powers of guidance of a sporting nature (so-called soft law) and the powers of recognition, laid down by law, for the purposes of acquiring legal personality and enablement powers in the sports sector, both powers relating generally to all Italian national sports federations?










2.


Must the general indicator of control referred to in Paragraph 20.15 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (‘the ESA 2010’) (‘the ability to determine the general policy or programme of [a non-profit institution]’) be interpreted in a substantive sense as the ability to manage, constrain and influence the management activity of the non-profit institution or can it be understood in a non-technical sense as also covering powers of external supervision other than those defined by the specific indicators of control referred to in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Paragraph 20.15 (such as, for example, powers to approve budgets, appoint auditors, and approve statutes and certain types of regulations, sports guidelines or recognition for the purposes of sport)?










3.


On the basis of the combined provisions of Paragraphs 20.15, 4.125 and 4.126 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (‘the ESA 2010’), can account be taken of membership fees for the purposes of establishing the existence or otherwise of public control, specifying whether a high level of such fees, together with other own revenues, can demonstrate, in the light of the particular features of the case at issue, that the non-profit institution has significant ability to exercise self-determination?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8659 — Equistone Partners Europe SAS/Groupe Bruneau) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, office supplies








C_2017358EN.01000202.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8659 — Equistone Partners Europe SAS/Groupe Bruneau)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 358/04)
On 19 October 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 French 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 32017M8659. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-614/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








C_2018042EN.01000301.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud
(Case C-614/17)
(2018/C 042/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego

Respondent: Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud

Questions referred







1)


Must the evocation of a protected designation of origin prohibited by Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006 (1) necessarily be brought about by the use of a name visually, phonetically or conceptually similar to the protected designation of origin or may it be brought about by the use of figurative signs evoking the designation of origin?










2)


When the protected designation of origin is of a geographical nature (Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation 510/2006) and when the products are the same or comparable, can the use of signs evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin is associated constitute evocation of the protected designation of origin itself, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006, which is prohibited even when the user of those signs is a producer established in the region associated with the protected designation of origin, but whose products are not protected by the designation of origin because they do not meet the requirements set out in the product specification, apart from the geographical provenance?










3)


Must the concept of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to whose perception the national court has to refer in order to assess whether there is ‘evocation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006, be understood to cover European consumers or can it cover solely consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to evocation of the protected geographical indication is produced or with which the PDO is geographically associated and in which the product is mainly consumed?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) noo 510/2006 of 20 March 2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).
Case C-613/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, administrative supervision, legal status, non-profit organisation, sports body








C_2018022EN.01002302.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT
(Case C-613/17)
(2018/C 022/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE)

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT

Questions referred







1.


Must the concept of ‘public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ referred to in Paragraph 20.15 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (1) (‘the ESA 2010’) be understood broadly as covering also the powers of guidance of a sporting nature (so-called soft law) and the powers of recognition, laid down by law, for the purposes of acquiring legal personality and enablement powers in the sports sector, both powers relating generally to all Italian national sports federations?










2.


Must the general indicator of control referred to in Paragraph 20.15 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (‘the ESA 2010’) (‘the ability to determine the general policy or programme of [a non-profit institution]’) be interpreted in a substantive sense as the ability to manage, constrain and influence the management activity of the non-profit institution or can it be understood in a non-technical sense as also covering powers of external supervision other than those defined by the specific indicators of control referred to in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Paragraph 20.15 (such as, for example, powers to approve budgets, appoint auditors, and approve statutes and certain types of regulations, sports guidelines or recognition for the purposes of sport)?










3.


On the basis of the combined provisions of Paragraphs 20.15, 4.125 and 4.126 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (‘the ESA 2010’), can account be taken of membership fees for the purposes of establishing the existence or otherwise of public control, specifying whether a high level of such fees, together with other own revenues, can demonstrate, in the light of the particular features of the case at issue, that the non-profit institution has significant ability to exercise self-determination?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1).