do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-116/07: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — France v Commission
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, Italy, State aid, aluminium, chemical industry, control of State aid, excise duty, mineral oil, tax exemption








C_2018134EN.01003901.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/39





Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — France v Commission
(Case T-116/07) (1)

(2018/C 134/55)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
Case C-138/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, electrical equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2018166EN.01002101.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S
(Case C-138/18)
(2018/C 166/27)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Estron A/S

Questions referred







1.


Is Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, (1) read in conjunction with General Rules Nos 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘parts and accessories, which are goods included in any of the headings of this chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91’, refers to goods in the four-digit headings in those chapters, or is the Note to be interpreted as also referring to the related subheading notes (the first six digits) in Chapters 84, 85, 90 and 91?










2.


Should connectors such as those at issue in the present case be classified under CN subheading 8544 42 90, CN subheading 9021 40 00 or CN subheading 9021 90 10?










3.


Should Note 1(m) to section XVI be interpreted as meaning that where a good is included in Chapter 90, it cannot also be included in Chapters 84 and 85?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
Case T-210/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE TURBO — Earlier EU figurative mark TURBO — 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) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, electronic component, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2018123EN.01001902.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/19





Judgment of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)
(Case T-210/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE TURBO - Earlier EU figurative mark TURBO - 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) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 123/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 (Case R 119/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Zitro IP and International Gaming Projects.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 February 2017 (Case R 119/2016-4);










2)


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by International Gaming Projects Ltd;










3)


Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case C-545/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited v Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Motor vehicles for the transport of goods — Subheadings 8704 10 10 and 8704 21 91 — Regulation (EU) 2015/221 — Validity)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, carriage of goods, common customs tariff, large vehicle, motor vehicle, specification of tariff heading








C_2018134EN.01000801.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/8





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited v Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-545/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Motor vehicles for the transport of goods - Subheadings 8704 10 10 and 8704 21 91 - Regulation (EU) 2015/221 - Validity))
(2018/C 134/10)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/221 of 10 February 2015 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8480 — Praxair/Linde) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, mechanical engineering, merger control, supplier








C_2018067EN.01000401.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/4





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8480 — Praxair/Linde)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 67/06)
On 16 February 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8480 — Praxair/Linde, to the following 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’).
Joined Cases C-398/16 and C-399/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Advantages linked to the formation of a single tax entity — Exclusion of cross-border groups)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital increase, corporation tax, interest, loan, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax law, tax relief








C_2018134EN.01000702.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Joined Cases C-398/16 and C-399/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Advantages linked to the formation of a single tax entity - Exclusion of cross-border groups))
(2018/C 134/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan taken out with a related company in order to finance a capital contribution to a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas if the subsidiary were established in the same Member State, the parent company could avail itself of that deduction by forming a tax-integrated entity with it.










2.


Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct from its profits capital losses derived from fluctuations in the exchange rate, in connection with the value of its shares in a subsidiary established in another Member State, where the same legislation does not provide, symmetrically, for tax to be levied on capital gains derived from those fluctuations.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8748 — Dr. Oetker/Bake &amp; Co) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, merger control, processed foodstuff








C_2018067EN.01000302.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8748 — Dr. Oetker/Bake & Co)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 67/05)
On 15 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 32018M8748. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020 (Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 568)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, action programme, financial aid, invitation to tender, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2018067EN.01000901.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/9





Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020
(Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 568)
(2018/C 67/09)
The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching the following call for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the 2018 Work Programme in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.
Proposals are invited for the following three call areas:






 


CEF-TC-2018-1: eIdentification (eID) & eSignature










 


CEF-TC-2018-1: Europeana










 


CEF-TC-2018-1: Safer internet




The total indicative budget available for proposals selected under these calls is EUR 30 million.
The deadline for the submission of proposals is 15 May 2018.

The respective call documentation is available on the CEF Telecom website:
https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/apply-funding/2018-cef-telecom-calls-proposals
Case T-110/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, Northern Ireland, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, withdrawal from the EU








C_2018166EN.01003301.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/33





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission
(Case T-110/18)
(2018/C 166/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grange Backup Power Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland;










—


annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the failure of the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding the doubts raised as to the compatibility of the all-island capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) with the state aid and internal market rules, thereby depriving the applicant of its procedural rights. This plea is divided into four branches:






—


the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure;










—


the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU;










—


the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2)











—


in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

(2)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).
Case T-114/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, dietary product, eating habits, foodstuff, living conditions, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018152EN.01004302.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-114/18)
(2018/C 152/53)
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 15 081 508

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2166/2016-1

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.
Case T-109/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, indemnification, professional experience, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018161EN.01005301.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/53





Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission
(Case T-109/18)
(2018/C 161/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VI (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


annul, first, the decision of 14 November 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 13 July 2017, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for 50 000 euros in compensation;










—


annul, second, the decision of 19 April 2017 of EPSO rejecting her request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition;










—


annul, third, the decision of 6 February 2017 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/323/16;










—


annul, fourth, the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016, and in its entirety the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;










—


award 50 000 euros in compensation to the applicant for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 manifest error of assessment by EPSO/Selection Board concerning the evaluation of the working experience of the applicant, including the breach of Annex III to the Notice of Competition at issue detailing the required working experience.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






(1)  Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8486 — 3M Company/Scott Safety) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, protective equipment








C_2018067EN.01000301.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8486 — 3M Company/Scott Safety)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 67/04)
On 29 September 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 32017M8486. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.