do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-356/16: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting the advertising of procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, aesthetic surgery, health legislation








C_2018005EN.01001402.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/14





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol
(Case C-356/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting the advertising of procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine))
(2018/C 005/19)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties in the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol

Operative part of the order

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which protects public health and the dignity and integrity of the professions of plastic surgeon and plastic doctor by prohibiting any natural or legal person from disseminating advertising for procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine.


(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Case T-704/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Marine Harvest v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Decision imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration prior to its notification and authorisation — Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Negligence — Principle ne bis in idem — Gravity of the infringement — Amount of the fine)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, economic concentration, merger control, sanction (EU)








C_2017424EN.01002801.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/28





Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Marine Harvest v Commission
(Case T-704/14) (1)

((Competition - Concentrations - Decision imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration prior to its notification and authorisation - Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Negligence - Principle ne bis in idem - Gravity of the infringement - Amount of the fine))
(2017/C 424/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marine Harvest ASA (Bergen, Norway) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, C. Giolito and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5089 final of 23 July 2014 imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case COMP/M.7184 — Marine Harvest/Morpol), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Marine Harvest ASA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, household article, import (EU), originating product








C_2017362EN.01003001.xml










26.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/30





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2017/C 362/04)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Ironing boards


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 695/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of ironing boards originating in Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 198, 23.7.2013, p. 1)


24.7.2018






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-615/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2017 — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification








C_2018063EN.01000402.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2017 — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp
(Case C-615/17)
(2018/C 063/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eurowings GmbH

Defendants: Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

Question referred

Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist when a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight due to a relatively minor delay in arrival, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking confirmation was issued by a tour operator who combined the flights for its customer?


(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).
Joined Cases C-457/16 P and C-459/16 P to C-461/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — Global Steel Wire, SA (C-457/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-459/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-460/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-461/16 P) v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent company — Definition of ‘undertaking’ — Evidence for the finding of an economic unit — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Successive undertakings — Amount of the fine — Ability to pay — Conditions — Observance of the rights of the defence)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, financial solvency, fine, parent company, rights of the defence, steel, subsidiary








C_2017437EN.01001302.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/13





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — Global Steel Wire, SA (C-457/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-459/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-460/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-461/16 P) v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-457/16 P and C-459/16 P to C-461/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent company - Definition of ‘undertaking’ - Evidence for the finding of an economic unit - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Successive undertakings - Amount of the fine - Ability to pay - Conditions - Observance of the rights of the defence))
(2017/C 437/16)
Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Global Steel Wire, SA (C-457/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-459/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-460/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-461/16 P) (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Ortiz Blanco and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders Global Steel Wire SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, Trefilerías Quijano SA and Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case C-534/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky, Slovakia) — Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v BB construct s. r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Inclusion in the register of taxable persons for VAT — National law requiring provision of a guarantee — Combating fraud — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom to conduct a business — Principle of non-discrimination — Principle of ne bis in idem — Principle of non-retroactivity)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, equal treatment, guarantee, legal person, retroactivity of a law, right of establishment, tax offence, taxpayer








C_2017437EN.01001401.xml










18.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/14





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky, Slovakia) — Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v BB construct s. r. o.
(Case C-534/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Inclusion in the register of taxable persons for VAT - National law requiring provision of a guarantee - Combating fraud - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom to conduct a business - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of ne bis in idem - Principle of non-retroactivity))
(2017/C 437/17)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Defendant: BB construct s. r. o.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding, at the time of the registration for the purposes of value added tax of a taxable person, of which the director was formerly the director or associate member of another legal person which had not complied with its tax obligations, the tax authority from requiring that taxable person to provide a guarantee, the amount of which could reach EUR 500 000, provided that the guarantee required from that taxable person does not go further than is necessary in order to attain the objectives of Article 273, which it is for the referring court to determine.










2.


The principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding a tax authority from requiring a new taxable person, at the time of his registration for the purposes of value added tax, to provide, owing to his links with another legal person that has tax debts, such a guarantee






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-431/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — VIMC v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Private healthcare market — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Decision rejecting a complaint — Handing of the case by a Member State’s competition authority)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: application of EU law, competition policy, dominant position, health care, private sector, provision of services








C_2017424EN.01003102.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/31





Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — VIMC v Commission
(Case T-431/16) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Private healthcare market - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Decision rejecting a complaint - Handing of the case by a Member State’s competition authority))
(2017/C 424/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Bramerdorfer and H. Grubmüller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 3351 final of 27 May 2016, rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning a breach of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by the Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (WKO, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber) or the Fachverband der Gesundheitsbetriebe (professional association of undertakings in the healthcare sector, Austria) (Case AT.40231 — VIMC v WK&FGB).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case T-394/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — KPN v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Commitments — Duty to state reasons — Relevant market — Vertical effects — Judicial review)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Netherlands, competition policy, domestic market, economic concentration, judicial review, merger control, telecommunications, telecommunications industry, television








C_2017424EN.01002802.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/28





Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — KPN v Commission
(Case T-394/15) (1)

((Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Duty to state reasons - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Judicial review))
(2017/C 424/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, C. van der Hoeven and G. Hakopian, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, J. Szczodrowski, H. van Vliet and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo) (OJ 2015, C 145, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo);










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case T-601/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Paraskevaidis v Cedefop. (Civil Service — Officials — Cedefop — Promotion — 2015 Promotion exercise — Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 — Articles 44 and 45 of the Staff Regulations — Comparison of the merits — Duty to state reasons — Implied rejection of the complaint — Liability)
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, indemnification, pay scale, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017424EN.01003301.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/33





Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Paraskevaidis v Cedefop.
(Case T-601/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Cedefop - Promotion - 2015 Promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 - Articles 44 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of the merits - Duty to state reasons - Implied rejection of the complaint - Liability))
(2017/C 424/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Georges Paraskevaidis (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, and A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application brought under Article 270 TFEU for, first, the annulment of the decision of the director of Cedefop of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise;










2.


Orders Cedefop to pay Mr Paraskevaidis EUR 2 000 as compensation for the damage he suffered










3.


Dismisses the action for the remainder.










4.


Orders Cedefop to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296 of 16 August 2016 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-31/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case T-331/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark #hello media group — Earlier EU figurative and word marks HELLO! — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017424EN.01003101.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/31





Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)
(Case T-331/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark #hello media group - Earlier EU figurative and word marks HELLO! - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 424/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hello Media Group, SL (Madrid, Spain), authorised to replace Hello Media, SL (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hola, SL (Madrid) (represented by: F. Arroyo Álvarez de Toledo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Case R 2012/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hola and Hello Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hello Media Group, SL, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.