do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes — Report by the Code of Conduct Group (Business taxation) suggesting the de-listing of certain jurisdictions
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: administrative cooperation, exchange of information, international cooperation, international tax law, tax avoidance, tax evasion, third country








C_2018100EN.01000401.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/4





The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes — Report by the Code of Conduct Group (Business taxation) suggesting the de-listing of certain jurisdictions
(2018/C 100/06)
With effect from the day of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Council conclusions of 5 December 2017 on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (1) are amended as follows:

In Annex I:







1.


Points 2 (Bahrain), 8 (Marshall Islands) and 13 (Saint Lucia) are deleted.





In Annex II:







1.


Bahrain is added to Sections 1.1 (subsection 1), 1.2 (subsection 1), 1.3 (subsection 1), 2.2 and 3 (sub-section 1).










2.


Malaysia and Labuan Island are moved from subsection 2 to subsection 1 of Section 2.1.










3.


Marshall Islands is added to Sections 1.1 (subsection 1), 1.2 (subsection 1), 2.2 and 3 (subsection 1).










4.


Saint Lucia is added to Sections 2.1 (subsection 1) and 3 (subsection 1).






(1)  OJ C 438, 19.12.2017, p. 5.
Case T-822/16: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark _kix — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged out of time)
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chain store, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018166EN.01003001.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/30





Order of the General Court of 16 March 2018 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix)
(Case T-822/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark _kix - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Articles 173(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure - Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Response lodged out of time))
(2018/C 166/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and L. Pechan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Cavescu, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2016 (Case R 2323/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between KiK Textilien und Non-Food and FF Group Romania.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH.










3.


FF Group Romania shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-194/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018166EN.01004202.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/42





Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)
(Case T-194/18)
(2018/C 166/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Köln, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BonNatura — Application for registration No 14 038 491

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 949/2017-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 46 of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8762 — ArcelorMittal/CLN/CSM) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2018100EN.01000102.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8762 — ArcelorMittal/CLN/CSM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 100/02)
On 8 March 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 32018M8762. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-191/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 16 March 2018 — KN v Minister for Justice and Equality
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, United Kingdom, fundamental rights, withdrawal from the EU








C_2018190EN.01000901.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 16 March 2018 — KN v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-191/18)
(2018/C 190/12)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KN

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred







1.


Having regard to:






a)


The giving by the United Kingdom of notice under Article 50 of the TEU;










b)


The uncertainty as to the arrangements which will be put in place between the European Union and the United Kingdom to govern relations after the departure of the United Kingdom; and










c)


The consequential uncertainty as to the extent to which KN would, in practice, be able to enjoy rights under the Treaties, the Charter or relevant legislation, should he be surrendered to the United Kingdom and remain incarcerated after the departure of the United Kingdom,




Is a requested Member State required by European Union Law to decline to surrender to the United Kingdom a person the subject of a European arrest warrant, whose surrender would otherwise be required under the national law of the Member State,






(i)


in all cases?










(ii)


In some cases, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case?










(iii)


In no cases?














2.


If the answer to Question 1 is that set out at (ii) what are the criteria or considerations which a court in the requested Member State must assess to determine whether surrender is prohibited?










3.


In the context of Question 2 is the court of the requested Member State required to postpone the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant to await greater clarity about the relevant legal regime which is to be put in place after the withdrawal of the relevant requesting Member State from the Union






(i)


in all cases?










(ii)


In some cases, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case?










(iii)


In no cases?














4.


If the answer to Question 3 is that set out at (ii) what are the criteria or considerations which a court in the requested Member State must assess to determine whether it is required to postpone the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8811 — IFM/CDPQ/Conmex) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, road building








C_2018100EN.01000202.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8811 — IFM/CDPQ/Conmex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 100/04)
On 12 March 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 32018M8811. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes — Changes due to commitments received from jurisdictions affected by hurricanes — Adoption
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: administrative cooperation, exchange of information, international cooperation, international tax law, tax avoidance, tax evasion, third country








C_2018100EN.01000501.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/5





The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes — Changes due to commitments received from jurisdictions affected by hurricanes — Adoption
(2018/C 100/07)
With effect from the day of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Council conclusions of 5 December 2017 on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (1) are amended as follows:

In Annex I:







1.


Bahamas is added with the following text:
‘Bahamas facilitates offshore structures and arrangements aimed at attracting profits without real economic substance and did not commit to addressing these issues by 31 December 2018.


Bahamas' commitment to comply with criteria 1.1 and 1.3 will be monitored.’










2.


Saint Kitts and Nevis is added with the following text:
‘Saint Kitts and Nevis has a harmful preferential tax regime and did not commit to amending or abolishing it by 31 December 2018.


Saint Kitts and Nevis' commitment to comply with criterion 3 will be monitored.’










3.


US Virgin Islands is added with the following text:
‘US Virgin Islands does not apply any automatic exchange of financial information, has not signed and ratified, including through the jurisdiction they are dependent on, the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance as amended, has harmful preferential tax regimes and did not clearly commit to amending or abolishing it, does not apply the BEPS minimum standards and did not commit to addressing these issues by 31 December 2018.’





In Annex II:







1.


Anguilla is added in Section 2.2.










2.


Antigua and Barbuda is added in the first subsections of Sections 1.1, 1.3, 2.1 and 3.










3.


British Virgin Islands is added to Section 2.2.










4.


Dominica is added in the first subsections of Sections 1.1, 1.3, 2.1 and 3.






(1)  OJ C 438, 19.12.2017, p. 5.
Case T-191/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, light-duty vehicle, motor vehicle








C_2018161EN.01007101.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/71





Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)
(Case T-191/18)
(2018/C 161/89)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 762851-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1203/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8606 — ELG Haniel/Iberinox/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control, metal waste, wholesale trade








C_2018100EN.01000201.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8606 — ELG Haniel/Iberinox/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 100/03)
On 12 March 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 32018M8606. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8782 — Cerberus Capital Management/BBVA (real estate business)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2018100EN.01003501.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/35





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8782 — Cerberus Capital Management/BBVA (real estate business))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 100/14)






1.


On 9 March 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:






—


Promontoria Marina, SLU (‘Promontoria Marina’, Spain), an affiliated entity of Cerberus Capital Management, LP (‘Cerberus’, USA),










—


a business currently operated under the sole control of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (‘BBVA’, Spain) (‘Target Business’, Spain).




Cerberus acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control over the Target Business. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Cerberus: investment in real and personal property of all kinds. Cerberus is active, among others, in the real estate sector in Spain through a number of companies, which manage real estate assets in their own name, and through Haya Real Estate, SL, which manages and commercialises third-party real estate assets,
—   for the Target Business: development, sale and leasing of real estate assets mainly bought from distressed debtors. The Target Business does not offer real estate services to third-party customers.










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.8782 — Cerberus Capital Management/BBVA (real estate business)
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.
Special Report No 7/2018 — ‘EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey: Only limited results so far’
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, EU law, Türkiye, financing of aid, governance, personnel administration, pre-accession aid, rule of law








C_2018100EN.01002401.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/24





Special Report No 7/2018
‘EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey: Only limited results so far’
(2018/C 100/11)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 7/2018 ‘EU pre-accession assistance to Turkey: Only limited results so far’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8779 — PAI Partners/Albea) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, packaging product








C_2018100EN.01000101.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8779 — PAI Partners/Albea)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 100/01)
On 2 March 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 32018M8779. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8827 — Apollo Management/CBR) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, miscellaneous industries, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2018100EN.01000301.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8827 — Apollo Management/CBR)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 100/05)
On 8 March 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 32018M8827. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-192/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)
Date: 2018-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, light-duty vehicle, motor vehicle








C_2018161EN.01007201.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/72





Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)
(Case T-192/18)
(2018/C 161/90)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: International registration No DM/073118-3 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1244/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare the effect of the international registration of design DM/073118-3 in the European Union to be null and void;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.