do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8729 — EQT Fund Management/G+E GETEC Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2017403EN.01001101.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8729 — EQT Fund Management/G+E GETEC Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 403/09)






1.


On 21 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:






—


EQT Fund Management SARL (‘EQT’, Luxembourg),










—


G+E GETEC Holding GmbH that comprises: (i) GETEC heat & power AG; (ii) GETEC Wärme & Effizienz AG; (iii) GETEC media AG; (iv) GETEC shared services GmbH; (v) GETEC Contracting GmbH (together ‘GETEC Targets’, Germany).




EQT acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the GETEC Targets.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


EQT is an investment fund that seeks to make investments in infrastructure and infrastructure-related assets and businesses in northern Europe, continental Europe and North America,










—


GETEC Targets are specialised in energy contracting in Germany and the Netherlands.














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 the 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.8729 — EQT Fund Management/G+E GETEC Holding
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 C-672/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 28 November 2017 — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax exemption, tax law, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2018052EN.01002202.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 28 November 2017 — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-672/17)
(2018/C 052/32)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Do the principle of neutrality and Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 preclude national legislation such as Article 78(11) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code), which is interpreted to the effect that the tax may not be adjusted, in the event of non-payment, before the purchaser of the goods or service, being a taxable person, has been notified of the cancellation of the tax for the purposes of rectifying the deduction initially made?










2.


If so, do the principle of neutrality and Article 90 of Directive 2006/112/EC preclude national legislation such as Article 78(11) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado, which is interpreted to the effect that the tax may not be adjusted, in the event of non-payment, where the purchaser of the goods or service, being a taxable person, was not notified of the cancellation of the tax within the time-limit for deducting the tax laid down in Article 98(2) of the Value Added Tax Code?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-217/11 REV: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Staelen v Ombudsman (Non-contractual liability — Application for revision — Consequences of a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice partially setting aside a judgment of the General Court — No new facts — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), job application, liability








C_2018042EN.01002402.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/24





Order of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Staelen v Ombudsman
(Case T-217/11 REV) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Application for revision - Consequences of a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice partially setting aside a judgment of the General Court - No new facts - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 042/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Claire Staelen (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Olona, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: initially G. Grill, then L. Papadias, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Application for revision of the judgment of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238)

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Ms Claire Staelen is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
Case T-909/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NRIM Life Sciences — Earlier national word mark RYM — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001))
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2018022EN.01003902.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/39





Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)
(Case T-909/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NRIM Life Sciences - Earlier national word mark RYM - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001)))
(2018/C 022/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Anil K. Sharma (Hillingdon, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2376/2015-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Mr Sharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8588 — Continental Automotive/Alstom/EasyMile) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of passengers, economic concentration, land transport, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2017403EN.01000102.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8588 — Continental Automotive/Alstom/EasyMile)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 403/02)
On 21 November 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 English 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 32017M8588. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.