do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-76/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT (Technological research and development — EIT — Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation — Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community — Rejection of the applicant’s proposal — Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 — Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 — Unlawful delegation of powers)
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, delegation of power, innovation, invitation to tender, living conditions, population ageing, research and development








C_2018072EN.01003101.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/31





Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT
(Case T-76/15) (1)

((Technological research and development - EIT - Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation - Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community - Rejection of the applicant’s proposal - Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 - Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Unlawful delegation of powers))
(2018/C 072/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Kenup Foundation (Kalkara, Malta) Candena GmbH (Luneburg, Germany), CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: initially by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner, H. Weiß and A. Richter, and subsequently by: U. Soltész, H. Weiß and A. Richter, and finally by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (represented by: M. Kern, acting as Agent, and P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Republic of Malta (represented by: M.E. Perici Calascione, lawyer) and Stiftung Universität Lüneburg (represented by: F. Oehl, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the EIT designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the European Institute of Innovation and Technology designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal;










2.


Orders the EIT to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kenup Foundation, Candena GmbH, CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo and Evotec AG.






(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
Case C-463/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stadion Amsterdam CV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 77/388/EEC — Third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) — Reduced rate of VAT — Annex H, category 7 — Single supply comprised of two distinct elements — Selective application of a reduced rate of VAT to one of those elements — ‘World of Ajax’ tour — Visit to the AFC Ajax museum)
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, museum, tax relief








C_2018083EN.01000401.xml










5.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/4





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stadion Amsterdam CV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-463/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 77/388/EEC - Third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) - Reduced rate of VAT - Annex H, category 7 - Single supply comprised of two distinct elements - Selective application of a reduced rate of VAT to one of those elements - ‘World of Ajax’ tour - Visit to the AFC Ajax museum))
(2018/C 083/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stadion Amsterdam CV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

The Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprised of two distinct elements, one principal, the other ancillary, which, if they were supplied separately, would be subject to different rates of value added tax, must be taxed solely at the rate of value added tax applicable to that single supply, that rate being determined according to the principal element, even if the price of each element forming the full price paid by a consumer in order to be able to receive that supply can be identified.


(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8781 — Waterland/De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas supply, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2018016EN.01000701.xml










18.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8781 — Waterland/De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 16/06)






1.


On 11 January 2018, 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:






—


Waterland Private Equity Investments B.V. (‘Waterland’, The Netherlands),










—


De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij B.V. (‘NLE’, The Netherlands).




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










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Waterland: an independent private equity firm, ultimately solely controlling Nuts Groep B.V. (‘Nuts Groep’, The Netherlands) that will acquire 100 % of the shares in NLE. Nuts Groep supplies electricity and gas to small customers in the Netherlands and Belgium,
—   for NLE: a supplier of electricity and gas to small customers in 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.8781 — Waterland/De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij
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-32/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2018 — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Germany, dependant, family benefit, frontier worker, income, parental allowance, residence, social legislation, social-security harmonisation








C_2018152EN.01000401.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2018 — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser
(Case C-32/18)
(2018/C 152/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Michael Moser

Questions referred









1.


Must the second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation No 883/2004) (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State having secondary competence (Austria) must pay, as a family benefit, to a parent resident and employed in a Member State having primary competence in accordance with Article 68(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 883/2004 (Germany) the difference between the ‘Elterngeld’ (parental allowance) paid in the Member State having primary competence and the income-dependent ‘Kinderbetreuungsgeld’ (childcare allowance) in the other Member State, in the case where both parents live with their common children in the Member State having primary competence and the second parent alone is employed as a cross-border worker in the Member State having secondary competence?




In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:






2.


Must the income-dependent ‘Kinderbetreuungsgeld’ be calculated by reference to the income actually earned in the Member State of employment (Germany) or by reference to the income which could hypothetically be earned from a comparable gainful activity in the Member State having secondary competence (Austria)?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.
Case C-33/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2018 — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Luxembourg, frontier worker, self-employed person, self-employment, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation, wage earner








C_2018112EN.01002201.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2018 — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL
(Case C-33/18)
(2018/C 112/29)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: V

Defendants: Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL

Questions referred







(1)


Is Article 87(8) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who, before 1 May 2010, began to pursue an activity as an employed person in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and an activity as a self-employed person in Belgium must, in order to be subject to the legislation applicable pursuant to Regulation 883/2004, submit an explicit request to that effect, even if he was subject to no obligation to pay contributions in Belgium before 1 May 2010 and was made subject to the Belgian legislation on the social security scheme for self-employed persons only retroactively, following the expiry of the three-month period starting on 1 May 2010?










(2)


If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does the request referred to in Article 87(8) of Regulation 883/2004 and submitted in the circumstances described above entail the application of the legislation of the competent State pursuant to Regulation 883/2004 with retroactive effect from 1 May 2010?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.
Case C-58/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020 — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(h) — Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ — Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon — Liquid waste — Excluded)
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, carbon, combustion gases, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, tradeable emission permit, waste








C_2018083EN.01000601.xml










5.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/6





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-58/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(h) - Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ - Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon - Liquid waste - Excluded))
(2018/C 083/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes from the concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’, within the meaning of that provision, greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon in a liquid state.


(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8757 — Nordic Capital/Alloheim) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: care for the elderly, economic concentration, investment company, medical centre, merger control, social facilities








C_2018016EN.01000501.xml










18.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8757 — Nordic Capital/Alloheim)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 16/05)






1.


On 9 January 2018, 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:






—


Nordic Capital VIII Limited acting in its capacity as general partner for and on behalf of Nordic Capital VIII Alpha, L.P. and Nordic Capital VIII Beta, L.P. (together ‘Nordic Capital Fund VIII’, Jersey),










—


Alloheim Senioren-Residenzen Holding SE (‘Alloheim’, Germany).




Nordic Capital Fund VIII indirectly acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Alloheim.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Nordic Capital Fund VIII: leading private equity house currently with controlling interests in 24 portfolio companies which are active in a wide range of sectors,
—   for Alloheim: operation of German nursing homes and provision of stationary care in the form of elderly care (including day care), specialised care and assisted living, as well as ambulatory care.










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.8757 — Nordic Capital/Alloheim
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email:




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-35/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2018 by Carrera Brands Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-419/16, Carrera Brands Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01000201.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/2






Appeal brought on 18 January 2018 by Carrera Brands Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-419/16, Carrera Brands Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-35/18 P)
(2018/C 427/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Carrera Brands Ltd (represented by: C. Markowsky, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Autec AG
By order of 14 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018016EN.01000101.xml










18.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 January 2018
(2018/C 16/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2203 




JPY


Japanese yen


135,21 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4469 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88568 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8425 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1774 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6220 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,447 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,77 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1713 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6571 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6654 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5314 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5185 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,5415 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6800 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6153 




KRW


South Korean won


1 303,65 




ZAR


South African rand


15,0524 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8528 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4266 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 302,02 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8340 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,017 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,3859 




THB


Thai baht


39,001 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9497 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9386 




INR


Indian rupee


78,0110 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-804/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Dual Edge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-01-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mobile phone, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018072EN.01003601.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/36





Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge)
(Case T-804/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Dual Edge - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 072/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 (Case R 832/2016-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Dual Edge as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.