do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-292/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus) — Proceedings brought by A Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 10(2) — Transfer of assets — Non-resident permanent establishment transferred, in the course of a transfer of assets, to a receiving company also non-resident — Right of the Member State of the transferring company to tax that establishment’s profits or capital gains resulting from the transfer of assets — National legislation providing for immediate taxation of the profits or capital gains in the year of transfer — Collection of the tax due as revenue of the tax year in which the transfer of assets took place)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, corporation tax, establishment, right of establishment, tax collection, transfer of businesses








C_2018022EN.01001101.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus) — Proceedings brought by A Oy
(Case C-292/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 10(2) - Transfer of assets - Non-resident permanent establishment transferred, in the course of a transfer of assets, to a receiving company also non-resident - Right of the Member State of the transferring company to tax that establishment’s profits or capital gains resulting from the transfer of assets - National legislation providing for immediate taxation of the profits or capital gains in the year of transfer - Collection of the tax due as revenue of the tax year in which the transfer of assets took place))
(2018/C 022/13)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where a resident company, in the course of a transfer of assets, transfers a non-resident permanent establishment to a company that is also non-resident, first, provides for the immediate taxation of the capital gains resulting from the transfer and, second, does not allow deferred collection of the tax, whereas in an equivalent national situation such capital gains are not taxed until the disposal of the transferred assets, in so far as that legislation does not allow the deferred collection of the tax.


(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8583 — Lufthansa Technik/Pepperl+Fuchs/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, research and development








C_2017396EN.01001101.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8583 — Lufthansa Technik/Pepperl+Fuchs/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 396/08)






1.


On 3 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:






—


Lufthansa Technik AG (‘Lufthansa Technik’, Germany), controlled by Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Germany),










—


Pepperl+Fuchs AG (‘Pepperl+Fuchs’, Germany),










—


JV, newly created joint venture (Germany).




Lufthansa Technik and Pepperl+Fuchs acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Lufthansa Technik: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services for the aerospace sector worldwide,
—   for Pepperl+Fuchs: development, manufacture and sale of electrical explosion protection and sensor technology products for process automation solutions and systems for a variety of industrial sectors,
—   for the JV: research, development and sale of sensor based automation solutions for aircraft maintenance services including aircraft engines and components specifically.










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.8583 — Lufthansa Technik/Pepperl+Fuchs/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-767/17: Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Wall lighting)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_2018022EN.01005801.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/58





Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Wall lighting)
(Case T-767/17)
(2018/C 022/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Briloner Leuchten GmbH (Brilon, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 2 435 768-0036

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 746/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case C-486/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata — Italy) — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata (CROB) di Rionero in Vulture (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 4 — Threshold amount for public contracts — Contracts which may have some cross-border interest — Request manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, cross-border cooperation, services contract, supplies contract, tendering, works contract








C_2018032EN.01001002.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/10





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata — Italy) — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata (CROB) di Rionero in Vulture
(Case C-486/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 4 - Threshold amount for public contracts - Contracts which may have some cross-border interest - Request manifestly inadmissible))
(2018/C 032/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Olympus Italia Srl

Defendant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata (CROB) di Rionero in Vulture

Other party: Crimo Italia Srl

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Basilicata (Administrative Court for the Basilicata Region, Italy) by decision of 22 July 2017, received at the Court on 10 August 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Amendment of Notice of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings regarding the assets of Gable Insurance AG, registration number FL-0002.161.375-6
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2017396EN.01001001.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/10





Amendment of Notice of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings regarding the assets of Gable Insurance AG, registration number FL-0002.161.375-6
(2017/C 396/07)
On 25 August 2017, the Princely Court of Justice (Fürstliches Landgericht) in Vaduz. Liechtenstein, issued an order amending the Notice of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings regarding the assets of Gable Insurance AG, registration number FL-0002.161.375-6 (
Official Journal of the European Union C 42, 9.2.2017, p. 5, and EEA Supplement No 9/2017, 9.2.2017, p. 3).
The original notice as issued on 17 November 2016 is amended as follows in points 3 and 4 (amendments are underlined)







‘3.


All creditors of Gable Insurance AG are requested to register their claims with the trustee in bankruptcy by 1 September 2018 at the latest, stating the legal title of the claim, the class asserted for the claim (preferential claim, claim class 1–4), the exact amount of the claim and any applicable interest, and enclosing the supporting documents for the plausible demonstration of their claims.
Creditors who register their claims later than the above date shall bear the costs caused by such late registration and will no longer be able to contest any claims reviewed earlier.










4.


The general review hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, 12 December 2018, 9.00 a.m., in courtroom 6, at the Princely Court of Justice (Spaniagasse 1, 9490 Vaduz).
All creditors are requested to bring the supporting documents for the plausible demonstration of their claims to this hearing as far as such documents have not already been enclosed with the registration of the claim.’





The court with jurisdiction in these bankruptcy proceedings is the Princely Court of Justice (Fürstliche Landgericht, Abteilung 05, Spaniagasse 1, 9490 Vaduz/Liechtenstein). The reference number for these bankruptcy proceedings is 05 K0.2016.672.
The bankruptcy administrator under Article 4 KO (Konkursordnung, Insolvency Code) is Batliner Wanger Batliner Rechtsanwälte AG (Am Schrägen Weg 2, 9490 Vaduz). All communication with the bankruptcy administrator shall be through the email address gable@bwb.li
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity — end of suspension of deadline
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, electrical energy, natural gas, public contract, retail trade








C_2017396EN.01001801.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/18





Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a contracting entity — end of suspension of deadline
(2017/C 396/13)
On 2 November 2016 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1).
This request, from the Czech Republic, concerns certain activities in the market for retail of electricity and gas in the Czech Republic. The relevant notice was published on page 10 of OJ C 23 on 24 January 2017. Two prolongation notices were published on page 10 of OJ C 167 on 25 May 2017 and on page 4 of OJ C 276 on 19 August 2017.
Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2, to Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the contracting entity concerned or the competent independent national authority or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within an appropriate time limit. On 28 June 2017 the Commission asked the Czech Authorities to provide additional information by 5 July 2017 at the latest. The reply of the Czech authorities was received on 1 August 2017.
In the event of late or incomplete answers, the initial deadline shall be suspended for the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information.
The final deadline will expire after 18 working days after the receipt of the complete and correct information. The final deadline therefore expires on 3 January 2018.


(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.
Case T-423/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Power cables — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, confidentiality, decision (EU), electric cable, publishing








C_2018022EN.01004101.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/41





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
(Case T-423/17 R)
((Interim relief - Competition - Power cables - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))
(2018/C 022/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Nexans France (Courbevoie, France), Nexans (Courbevoie) (represented by: G. Forwood, A. Rogers, A. Oh and M. Powell, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking, first, a suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2017) 3051 final of 2 May 2017 relating to a request for confidential treatment (Case COMP/AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as that request is refused in respect of the material seized from the applicants and another economic operator and, second, an order requiring the Commission to refrain from publishing a version of its Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 (Case COMP/AT.39610 — Power Cables), which contains that material.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The order of 12 July 2017, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T-423/17 R) is set aside.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Joined Cases C-596/15 P and C-597/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Bionorica SE (C-596/15 P), Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (C-597/15 P) v European Commission (Appeal — Public health — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims on foods — Article 13(3) — List of permitted health claims on foods — Botanical substances — Claims on hold — Action for failure to act — Article 265 TFEU — Defined position of the European Commission — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, market approval, public health, right of action








C_2018022EN.01000301.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Bionorica SE (C-596/15 P), Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (C-597/15 P) v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-596/15 P and C-597/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public health - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims on foods - Article 13(3) - List of permitted health claims on foods - Botanical substances - Claims on hold - Action for failure to act - Article 265 TFEU - Defined position of the European Commission - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi))
(2018/C 022/03)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Bionorica SE (C-596/15 P), Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (C-597/15 P) (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau and N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2015, Bionorica v Commission (T-619/14, not published, EU:T:2015:723);










2.


Dismisses the action for failure to act lodged by Bionorica SE in Case T-619/14 as inadmissible;










3.


Dismisses the appeal in Case C-597/15 P;










4.


Orders Bionorica SE and the Commission each to bear their own costs incurred both at first instance in Case T-619/14 and on appeal in Case C-596/15 P;










5.


Orders Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred on appeal in Case C-597/15 P.






(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Case C-314/17: Order of the Court of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Geocycle Bulgaria’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness — Reverse charge regime — Refusal to allow the recipient of an invoice to deduct input VAT — Decision of the tax authorities establishing a tax payable by the recipient of goods)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, double taxation, invoicing, supply, tax relief








C_2018032EN.01001001.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/10





Order of the Court of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Geocycle Bulgaria’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-314/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness - Reverse charge regime - Refusal to allow the recipient of an invoice to deduct input VAT - Decision of the tax authorities establishing a tax payable by the recipient of goods))
(2018/C 032/14)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Geocycle Bulgaria’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the order

The principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to allow the recipient of a supply to deduct input value added tax, where, with respect to the same transaction, value added tax is collected a first time from the provider of the goods or service, since he included it on the invoice he issued, then a second time from the purchaser, in situations in which national legislation does not provide for the possibility of adjusting the value added tax where there is a tax adjustment notice.


(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-777/17: Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01006101.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/61





Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)
(Case T-777/17)
(2018/C 022/82)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Xianhao Pan (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Entertainment One UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘TOBBIA’ — EU trade mark No 11 775 509

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1776/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety the contested decision.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to state reasons, breach of the valuation method of the relationship between the brands as well as a lack of assessment as to the assessment of likelihood of confusion of the marks;










—


Infringement of Article 8(b)(1) in relation to Article 53(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.