do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-702/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, concessionaire, consumer protection, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy grid, gas supply, principle of proportionality, provision of services








C_2018112EN.01001501.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
(Case C-702/17)
(2018/C 112/20)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Unareti SpA

Respondents: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per gli Affari Regionali, Autorità Garante per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico — Sede di Milano, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Conferenza Stato Regioni ed Unificata, Ministero per gli affari regionali, Dipartimento per gli affari regionali e le autonomie, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni e Enti Locali

Questions referred

In particular, the Court is asked to establish whether those principles and laws preclude national legislation, as described above, that provides for retrospective application of criteria for determining the amount of the reimbursements payable to former concession holders, thus affecting previous contractual relationships, or whether the application of those criteria can be justified, including in view of the proportionality principle, by the requirement of protecting other public interests of European importance, relating to the necessity of improving protection for competition within the market in question and of giving greater protection to service users, who could indirectly bear the cost of an increase in the sums payable to former concession holders.
Special Report No 21/2017 — ‘Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally effective’
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: agricultural land, aid to agriculture, climate change policy, ecologism, environmental protection, reform of the CAP, single payment scheme








C_2017429EN.01002401.xml










14.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/24





Special Report No 21/2017
‘Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally effective’
(2017/C 429/09)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 21/2017 ‘Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally effective’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case C-61/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) v Giant (China) Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 — Imports of bicycles originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 18(1) — Cooperation — Definition of ‘necessary information’ — Article 9(5) — Request for individual treatment — Risk of circumvention)
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2018052EN.01000302.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) v Giant (China) Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-61/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 - Imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 18(1) - Cooperation - Definition of ‘necessary information’ - Article 9(5) - Request for individual treatment - Risk of circumvention))
(2018/C 052/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat), Council of the European Union, (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission, (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, M. França, and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Giant (China) Co. Ltd;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8562 — Cargill/Faccenda Investments/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal production, economic concentration, food industry, food production, merger control, poultry farming








C_2017429EN.01000201.xml










14.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8562 — Cargill/Faccenda Investments/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 429/03)
On 15 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 32017M8562. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-304/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — bet365 Group Ltd v EUIPO — Hansen (BET 365) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark BET 365 — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character acquired through use — Proof — Use of the mark for a number of purposes — Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018052EN.01002601.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/26





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — bet365 Group Ltd v EUIPO — Hansen (BET 365)
(Case T-304/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BET 365 - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Proof - Use of the mark for a number of purposes - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 052/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: bet365 Group Ltd (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Malynicz QC, and by R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Hansen and bet365 Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the services in Class 41 listed in the registration of the EU trade mark BET 365;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case T-813/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Nerantzaki v Commission
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), professional qualifications, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018052EN.01003902.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/39





Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Nerantzaki v Commission
(Case T-813/17)
(2018/C 052/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 7 March 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;










—


annul the decision of the appointing authority Ares(2017)s. 4916702 of 14 September 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application.





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 a manifest error of assessment by the defendant in the assessment of the applicant’s professional qualifications.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the notice of competition EPSO/AD/331/16.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging inadequate and contradictory reasoning such as to constitute a breach both of Article 25 and of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
Case T-164/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament (Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — External provision of information technology services to the Parliament and other institutions and bodies of the EU — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU institution, EU office or agency, award of contract, damages, information technology, provision of services, services contract








C_2018042EN.01001102.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/11





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament
(Case T-164/15) (1)

((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - External provision of information technology services to the Parliament and other institutions and bodies of the EU - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))
(2018/C 042/15)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by: M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: B. Simon, L. Darie and I. Anagnostopoulou, and subsequently by: L. Darie, Z. Nagy and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament, sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank their bid in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’ and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank the bid of European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case C-700/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, biochemistry, health care, medical diagnosis, tax exemption








C_2018104EN.01001502.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters
(Case C-700/17)
(2018/C 104/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Kyritz

Defendant: Wolf-Henning Peters

Questions referred







1.


Is the tax exemption for the provision of medical care by a specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, assessed under Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or under Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?










2.


Does the applicability of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — if this provision is applicable — require that a confidential relationship exist between the doctor and the person being treated?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8681 — Endowment Strategies/Benvic Europe) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, plastics industry, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2017429EN.01000102.xml










14.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8681 — Endowment Strategies/Benvic Europe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 429/02)
On 5 December 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 32017M8681. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-792/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (OJO sunglasses) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses — Earlier international word mark oio — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018052EN.01002701.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/27





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (OJO sunglasses)
(Case T-792/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses - Earlier international word mark oio - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 052/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: N & C Franchise Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia, and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

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: Eschenbach Optik GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 (Case R 32/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Eschenbach Optik and N & C Franchise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders N & C Franchise Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-475/17: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Rogesa v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents concerning an installation producing a mixture of pellets and sintered ore — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted before the action was brought — Application for an order that there is no need to adjudicate — Interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, limitation of legal proceedings, trade information








C_2018052EN.01003101.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/31





Order of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Rogesa v Commission
(Case T-475/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents concerning an installation producing a mixture of pellets and sintered ore - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted before the action was brought - Application for an order that there is no need to adjudicate - Interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2018/C 052/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and A. Sitzer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, primarily, annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 20 June 2017 and, in the alternative, of the decision of 11 July 2017 refusing to grant access to the document Ares (2017) 1684109 of 2 November 2009 and the document Ares (2017) 1685639 of 29 November 2009.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case T-814/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Lithuania, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, rail network, sanction (EU)








C_2018052EN.01004001.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/40





Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission
(Case T-814/17)
(2018/C 052/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: W. Deselaers, K. Apel, P. Kirst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU in Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail; and/or










—


reduce the fines imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final dated 2 October 2017; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU, a manifest error of law by using the wrong legal test to evaluate the alleged abuse. According to the applicant, there could be an abuse only if access to the Track were essential or indispensable for competitors to compete on the downstream market (which is not the case).












2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU and manifest errors of law and assessment. The applicant puts forward that even under the (wrong) legal test applied by the Commission, the removal of the rail track connecting Mažeikiai in north-western Lithuania with the Latvian border (the ‘Track’) as non-essential facility did not constitute an abuse of a dominant position in the legal and factual circumstances of the present case.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 to the extent that, according to the applicant, there is insufficient evidence and failure to state reasons.












4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 23.3 of Regulation 1/2003, and manifest errors of law and of assessment in setting the amount of the fine.












5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003, manifest errors of law and assessment in ordering, in fact, a disproportionate remedy (i.e. the reconstruction of the Track).