do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-207/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common commercial policy — Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain goods originating in the People’s Republic of China — Anti-dumping duty held to be incompatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO))
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2018455EN.01001201.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
(Case C-207/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common commercial policy - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain goods originating in the People’s Republic of China - Anti-dumping duty held to be incompatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)))
(2018/C 455/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rotho Blaas Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the first question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, amending Regulation No 91/2009, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/519 of 26 March 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.


(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Case T-364/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China — Modification of the TARIC additional code for a company — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Whether directly concerned — Individual concern — Admissibility — Effect of a judgment annulling a decision — Rule of equivalence of form)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron, originating product, piping, steel, tube








C_2018436EN.01003501.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/35






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Commission
(Case T-364/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Modification of the TARIC additional code for a company - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Whether directly concerned - Individual concern - Admissibility - Effect of a judgment annulling a decision - Rule of equivalence of form))
(2018/C 436/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic) and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129, with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2015 L 322, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the European Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129, with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and the other applicants whose names are annexed.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case T-533/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark — Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA — Relative ground for refusal — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] — Complementarity of the goods — Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark — Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration — Legal certainty)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2018436EN.01004601.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/46






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)
(Case T-533/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark - Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] - Complementarity of the goods - Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark - Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration - Legal certainty))
(2018/C 436/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 (Case R 1448/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Next design+produktion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Next design+produktion GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Case T-640/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Heat stabilisers — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC — Decision amending the initial decision — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Fines — 10 % ceiling — Group of companies — Equal treatment)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, heating, sanction (EU)








C_2018436EN.01003702.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/37






Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — GEA Group v Commission
(Case T-640/16) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Heat stabilisers - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC - Decision amending the initial decision - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Fines - 10 % ceiling - Group of companies - Equal treatment))
(2018/C 436/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers);










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case C-149/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Compensation in the event of file-sharing in breach of copyright — Internet connection accessible by members of the owner’s family — Exemption from liability of the owner without the need to specify the nature of the use of the connection by the family member — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 7)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual piracy, computer piracy, copyright, literary and artistic property, transmission network








C_2018455EN.01001001.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/10






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer
(Case C-149/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Compensation in the event of file-sharing in breach of copyright - Internet connection accessible by members of the owner’s family - Exemption from liability of the owner without the need to specify the nature of the use of the connection by the family member - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7))
(2018/C 455/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Michael Strotzer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, as interpreted by the relevant national courts, the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot be held liable to pay damages if he can name at least one family member who might have had access to that connection, without providing further details as to when and how the internet was used by that family member.


(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1562 of 18 October 2018 amending for the 292nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism, trade restriction








LI2018261EN.01000101.xml










18.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 261/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1562
of 18 October 2018
         
amending for the 292nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 15 October 2018, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one entry to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(3)


In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective it should enter into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


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, 18 October 2018.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading ‘Natural persons’:


            ‘ANJEM CHOUDARY (alias Abu Luqman). Date of birth: 18.1.1967. Place of birth: Welling, London, United Kingdom. Address: Frankland Prison, United Kingdom. Nationality: British. Passport no: 516384722 (UK Passport issued by Passport Office Glasgow on 6.5.2013, expires on 6.6.2023). Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 15.10.2018.’
Case C-153/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 173 — Deduction of input tax — Vehicle hire purchase transactions — Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions — Origin and scope of the right to deduct — Proportional deduction)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, hire purchase, market prices, motor vehicle, overheads, price formation, supply, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2018455EN.01001002.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/10






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd
(Case C-153/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 173 - Deduction of input tax - Vehicle hire purchase transactions - Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions - Origin and scope of the right to deduct - Proportional deduction))
(2018/C 455/16)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168 and Article 173(2)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, first, even where the general costs relating to supplies of moveable goods by hire purchase, such as the supplies at issue in the main proceedings, are passed on not in the amount due by the customer in respect of the supply of the goods concerned, that is to say the taxable part of the transaction, but in the amount of the interest due in respect of the ‘finance’ part of the transaction, that is to say the exempt part thereof, those general costs must nonetheless be considered, for the purposes of value added tax (VAT), to be a component of the price of that supply and, second, Member States may not apply a method of apportionment which does not take account of the initial value of the goods concerned when they are supplied, since that method is not capable of ensuring a more precise apportionment than that which would arise from the application of the turnover-based allocation key.


(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Case C-669/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — Annexes II and III — Designation of special areas of conservation (SACs) — Harbour porpoise)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, infringement of EU law, marine mammal, national implementing measure, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life








C_2018455EN.01000801.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/8






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-669/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 4(1) - Annexes II and III - Designation of special areas of conservation (SACs) - Harbour porpoise))
(2018/C 455/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Norris-Usher and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: G. Brown, acting as Agent, and by R. Palmer and M. Armitage, Barristers.)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to propose and transmit, within the period prescribed, pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annexes II and III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, a list indicating a sufficient number of sites hosting the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and by failing, to that extent, to contribute, pursuant to Article 3(2) of that directive, to the creation of the Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of that species, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;










2.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-629/18: Action brought on 18 October 2018 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble)
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, provision of services, publisher, registered trade mark, software, sports equipment, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2018445EN.01002302.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/23






Action brought on 18 October 2018 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble)
(Case T-629/18)
(2018/C 445/29)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of a car in a speech bubble) — Application No 15 598 931

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2018 in Case R 2653/2017-4

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 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the fourth sentence of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 23(1)(d) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of the fourth sentence of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 23(1)(e) and Article 22(1)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.