do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-182/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c), Article 9 and Article 13(1) — Treatment as a non-taxable person — Definition of ‘body governed by public law’ — Commercial company 100 % owned by a municipality and responsible for performing certain public tasks incumbent on that municipality — Those tasks and their remuneration determined in a contract between the company and the municipality)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, firm governed by commercial law, municipality, provision of services, public authorities, services of general interest, tax exemption








C_2018134EN.01001101.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/11





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-182/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c), Article 9 and Article 13(1) - Treatment as a non-taxable person - Definition of ‘body governed by public law’ - Commercial company 100 % owned by a municipality and responsible for performing certain public tasks incumbent on that municipality - Those tasks and their remuneration determined in a contract between the company and the municipality))
(2018/C 134/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning, subject to verification of the relevant facts by the referring court, that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company performs certain public tasks under a contract concluded between that company and a municipality, constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration and subject to VAT under that provision.










2.


Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification of the relevant matters of fact and national law by the referring court, an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company performs certain public municipal tasks under a contract concluded between that company and a municipality, does not fall within the scope of the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for VAT purposes laid down by that provision, if that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case C-185/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Mitnitsa Varna v SAKSA ООD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Harmonised European standard EN 590:2013 — Subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature — Relevant criteria for the classification of goods as gas oil)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, diesel fuel, frigid zone, specification of tariff heading








C_2018134EN.01001102.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/11





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Mitnitsa Varna v SAKSA ООD
(Case C-185/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Harmonised European standard EN 590:2013 - Subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature - Relevant criteria for the classification of goods as gas oil))
(2018/C 134/15)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Mitnitsa Varna

Respondent: SAKSA ООD

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a mineral oil, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may not, on account of its distillation characteristics, be classified as gas oil under subheading 2710 19 43 of that nomenclature, even when that oil meets the requirements referred to in harmonised standard EN 590:2013, in the version of the month of September 2013, relating to gas oil for arctic or severe winter climates.


(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8755 — PAI/BCIMC/Refresco) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2018067EN.01000201.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8755 — PAI/BCIMC/Refresco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 67/02)
On 14 February 2018, 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 32018M8755. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-108/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, financial aid, fund (EU), management accounting, principle of proportionality, right to justice, university








C_2018166EN.01003202.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/32





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — University of Koblenz-Landau v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
(Case T-108/18)
(2018/C 166/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: University of Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Michel, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720-EACEA UKOLD of 21 December 2017;










—


annul the defendants’ notice with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 7 February 2018;










—


suspend the execution of the defendants’ notices with the reference OF/2016/0720 of 21 December 2017 and 7 February 2018 and the defendants’ Debit Note No 3241802552 of 13 February 2018 until the final conclusion of the proceedings for the annulment of the notices contested in this action; and










—


order the defendants to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a misapplication of EU law
Further, the notices for recovery infringe Article 5(4) TFEU and Article 135(4) of the Financial Regulation and the agreement between the parties, as the actual conditions for recovery are not known.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons for the recovery measures
The recovery notices contain only superficial, general comments without discussions of specific cases and their content is therefore incomprehensible.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality
The recovery of the entire amount can only be used as a measure of last resort in certain exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the instant case.
Case T-133/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01006602.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/66





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)
(Case T-133/18)
(2018/C 142/85)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: IQ Group Holdings Berhad (Heckmondwike, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Carter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Krinner Innovation GmbH (Straßkirchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of figurative mark Lumiqs — International registration designating the European Union No 1 220 053

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 983/2017-1.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the application to proceed to registration in respect of the contested goods as amended;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/269 of 22 February 2018 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 17th partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2018051EN.01001301.xml










23.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/13








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/269
of 22 February 2018
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 17th partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.












(2)


In the light of the tenders received for the 17th partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.












(3)


The Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the 17th partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 20 February 2018, the minimum selling price shall be 110,00 EUR/100 kg.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 22 February 2018.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018067EN.01000501.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 February 2018
(2018/C 67/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2312 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,41 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4465 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88463 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9648 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1551 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6420 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,361 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1589 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6615 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6650 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5684 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5601 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6341 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6754 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6267 




KRW


South Korean won


1 322,02 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3373 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8112 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4415 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 757,86 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8174 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,229 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,6656 




THB


Thai baht


38,783 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0080 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0516 




INR


Indian rupee


79,7295 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-104/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, food industry, food safety, innovation, legality, principle of proportionality, product quality, research and development, self-employed person








C_2018142EN.01005701.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/57





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
(Case T-104/18)
(2018/C 142/74)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (representatives: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;










—


Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required;










—


Order the REA to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the outcome of the inter partes financial recovery procedure in respect of the project FP7-SME-2013-605879-FOODWATCH grant agreement. The decision to terminate the FoodWatch grant agreement has its origin in the alleged failure to inform the defendant of the existence of the BreadGuard Project which, in the REA’s view, bore strong similarities to the FoodWatch project in terms of objectives, working methods and expected results.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure.










2.


The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.










3.


The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged.










4.


The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted.










5.


The fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on account of the failure to take into account the degree of fault on the part of each of the participants in the conduct alleged.
Case C-572/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 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 — Decision 2011/278/EU — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020 — Allocation application — Incorrect data — Correction — Mandatory time limit)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, greenhouse gas, tradeable emission permit








C_2018134EN.01000901.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-572/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Decision 2011/278/EU - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Allocation application - Incorrect data - Correction - Mandatory time limit))
(2018/C 134/11)
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 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, and 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, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, for the submission of an application for free allocation of emission allowances for the period 2013-2020, a mandatory time limit after which the applicant has no means of correcting or supplementing its application, since that time limit is not liable to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the submission of such an application.


(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Case C-233/17 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Civil service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, building industry, building safety, competition (EU)








C_2018142EN.01001802.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/18





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission
(Case C-233/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Civil service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 - Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list))
(2018/C 142/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: GX (represented by: G.-M. Enache, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


GX shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case T-113/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, eating habits, education, electronic device, living conditions, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, sport, trade-mark law








C_2018152EN.01004301.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/43





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)
(Case T-113/18)
(2018/C 152/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd (Alfreton, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Mellor, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FREE — Application for registration No 15 083 091

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2164/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.