do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2204 of 17 November 2017 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ (PGI))
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation








L_2017314EN.01000101.xml










30.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 314/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2204
of 17 November 2017
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Međimursko meso 'z tiblice’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. — Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 17 November 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 252, 3.8.2017, p. 17.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-643/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2017 — GE Power Controls Portugal — Unipessoal Lda v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, customs territory (EU), free circulation, import (EU), originating product








C_2018052EN.01001702.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2017 — GE Power Controls Portugal — Unipessoal Lda v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-643/17)
(2018/C 052/24)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GE Power Controls Portugal — Unipessoal Lda

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Question referred

In the light of Article 313(1) of the Implementing Regulation (1), are the goods referred to in the present case to be deemed to have Community status where it has not been established that they do not have such status, or […] must they be deemed to be goods brought into the customs territory, for the purposes of Article 3 of the [Community customs] code (2), and covered by the exception provided for in the first part of Article 313(2)(a) of the Implementing Regulation, with the result that only goods in respect of which it has been proven that a procedure for releasing them for free circulation in the EC customs territory has been carried out are to be recognised as having Community status[?]


(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) Noo 2454/93 of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1993, L 253, p. 1)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) Noo 2913/92, 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs (Code OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1)
Case C-641/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2017 — College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München III
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, capital gains tax, corporation tax, financial services, free movement of capital, pension fund, pension scheme, provision of services, tax exemption, third country








C_2018112EN.01000601.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2017 — College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München III
(Case C-641/17)
(2018/C 112/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: College Pension Plan of British Columbia

Defendant: Finanzamt München III

Questions referred







1.


Does the freedom of movement of capital under Article 63(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which a non-resident institution operating an occupational pension scheme whose essential structure is similar to a German pension fund does not receive any relief from tax on income from capital in respect of dividends received, whereas such dividend distributions to domestic pension funds do not result in any increase in their corporation tax liability, or only a comparatively small one, because the latter are able to reduce their taxable profit in a tax assessment procedure by deducting the amounts reserved to meet their pension payment obligations and to neutralise the tax on income from capital through a set-off, and also receive a refund in the event that the amount of corporation tax payable is less than the amount set-off?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is yes: is the restriction of the free movement of capital through Paragraph 32(1) No 2 of the Law on corporation tax permissible with respect to third countries under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 64(1) TFEU because it relates to the provision of financial services?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8691 — Innogy/European Energy Exchange/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer price, economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, renewable energy








C_2017388EN.01000701.xml










17.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8691 — Innogy/European Energy Exchange/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 388/07)






1.


On 10 November 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:






—


innogy SE (‘innogy’, Germany), controlled by RWE AG,










—


European Energy Exchange AG (‘EEX’, Germany), controlled by Deutsche Börse AG,










—


newly created joint venture (‘the JV’, Germany).




Innogy — directly and through its daughter company Süwag Vertrieb AG & Co. KG — and EEX acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for innogy: European energy supplier active in infrastructure, supply and renewable energy. The RWE group is active in generation, transport, trading and supply of electricity and gas, as well as water and district heating,
—   for EEX: develops and operates exchanges for energy and commodity products,
—   for the JV: will develop and operate an online price comparison and intermediary platform for German retail energy suppliers in the business-to-business (‘B2B’) segment.










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 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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8691 — Innogy/European Energy Exchange/JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-761/17: Action brought on 17 November 2017 — UR v Commission
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, audit, competition (EU), diploma, professional qualifications








C_2018032EN.01003901.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/39





Action brought on 17 November 2017 — UR v Commission
(Case T-761/17)
(2018/C 032/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the selection board of 11 August 2017, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/322/16;










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the selection board made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the applicant’s diploma did not satisfy one of the conditions for admission to the competition.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the competition notice is unlawful, based on the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials [of the European Union]. In particular, the applicant argues that the condition for admission at issue is not connected with the requirements of the posts to be filled as described in the competition notice and is, therefore, contrary to the interests of the service.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the contested decision lacks a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the criteria established by the selection board for assessing the relevance of the applicant’s diploma in the light of the condition for admission at issue have not been disclosed, which the applicant argues has prevented him from being able to prepare an adequate defence.
Case T-758/17: Action brought on 17 November 2017 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01005302.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/53





Action brought on 17 November 2017 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)
(Case T-758/17)
(2018/C 022/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements‘PERFECT BAR’ — Application for registration No 15 374 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 in Case R 2439/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the registration of the mark applied for, this is, the European Union Trademark application no. 015374085 ‘PERFECT BAR’;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and the EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-802/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIBION) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FEMIBION — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the mark — Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown)
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018005EN.01004001.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/40





Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIBION)
(Case T-802/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FEMIBION - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the mark - Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown))
(2018/C 005/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 (Case R 1608/2015-1), concerning revocation proceedings between Endoceutics and Merck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2016 (Case R 1608/2015-1), in so far as it maintained registration of the EU trade mark for ‘pharmaceutical preparations for immune system support, for menopause, for menstruation, for treatment and management of pregnancy, for the prevention, treatment and management of stress, for the prevention, treatment and management of stress [caused by] ill-balanced or deficient nutrition’;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Merck KGaA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Endoceutics Inc. before the General Court and the costs incurred by Endoceutics before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders Endoceutics to bear half of its own costs;










5.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case C-646/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Moro
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge, criminal proceedings, penalty, right to information, rights of the defence








C_2018052EN.01001901.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Moro
(Case C-646/17)
(2018/C 052/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Brindisi

Defendant in the main proceedings

Gianluca Moro

Question referred

Must Article 2(1), Article 3(1)(c) and Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2012/12/EU, (1) and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well, be interpreted as precluding procedural rules under the criminal law of a Member State on the basis of which the safeguards for the rights of the defence following a change to the charge are guaranteed in terms that differ, both in quality and in quantity, depending on whether that change relates to the factual elements of the charge or to its legal classification, in particular allowing the accused person only in the first case to request the alternative and beneficial procedure of the imposition of a negotiated penalty (the ‘patteggiamento’ procedure)?


(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).