do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1694 of 7 November 2018 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Oolde’ (PDO)
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Gelderland, Netherlands, designation of origin, fortified wine, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, sparkling wine, white wine, wine of superior quality








L_2018282EN.01000401.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 282/4








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1694
of 7 November 2018
         
conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Oolde’ (PDO)


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), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Oolde’ sent by the Netherlands and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(3)


In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Oolde’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Oolde’ (PDO) is hereby protected.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 7 November 2018.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  
            OJ C 199, 11.6.2018, p. 3.
Case C-432/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Part-time workers — Retirement pension — Calculation of the amount of the pension — Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC — Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law)
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, part-time employment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, working time








C_2019016EN.01001901.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/19






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs
(Case C-432/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time workers - Retirement pension - Calculation of the amount of the pension - Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC - Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law))
(2019/C 16/23)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dermod Patrick O’Brien

Respondent: Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the retirement pension entitlement.


(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case C-695/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2018 — Agencia Pública Empresarial de la Radio y Televisión de Andalucía (RTVA) v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, economic activity, provision of services, public institution, tax relief, taxpayer, television








C_2019072EN.01000401.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2018 — Agencia Pública Empresarial de la Radio y Televisión de Andalucía (RTVA) v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)
(Case C-695/18)
(2019/C 72/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agencia Pública Empresarial de la Radio y Televisión de Andalucía (RTVA)

Defendant: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)

Questions referred







1.


Is it possible to treat entities like those described, together with the bodies governed by public law which create them, as single taxable persons for VAT purposes, as defined by Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC? (1)











2.


If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, is it necessary to consider that the funding received by such entities from the bodies governed by public law which create them cannot under any circumstances be classified as consideration for the provision of services subject to VAT?










3.


As regards the deduction of input VAT payments by those entities, must it be the single taxable person which, as such, calculates the deductible amount by applying Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the basis of the activities which it carries out?










4.


In particular, and as far as public service television activities are concerned, assuming that those entities are capable of having a dual nature and also assuming that, together with the bodies governed by public law which are their majority shareholders, they are treated as single taxable persons, must only the portion of input VAT which can be considered to relate to their economic activity be treated as deductible?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9144 — Michael Kors/Gianni Versace) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, luxury products industry, merger control








C_2018414EN.01000202.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9144 — Michael Kors/Gianni Versace)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 414/04)
On 7 November 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 32018M9144. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-687/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 7 November 2018 — SY v Associated Newspapers Ltd
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, personal data, press, protection of privacy, right to justice








C_2019025EN.01002701.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/27






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 7 November 2018 — SY v Associated Newspapers Ltd
(Case C-687/18)
(2019/C 25/34)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SY

Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd

Question referred

Are provisions of national law such as subsections 32(4) and (5) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘the DPA’) — which provide that, where a data controller claims that any personal data to which proceedings against that data controller relate are being processed: (i) only for the purposes of journalism, artistic purposes, or literary purposes; and (ii) with a view to the publication of journalistic, literary or artistic material which has not previously been published by the data controller, such proceedings shall be stayed insofar as they concern unpublished personal data until (a) a determination by the Information Commissioner that conditions (i) or (ii) are not fulfilled, (b) the data controller's claim is withdrawn or (c) the personal data are published — compatible with Articles 9, 22 and 23 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) and Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?


(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995, L 281, p. 31).
Case C-698/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 7 November 2018 — SC Raiffeisen Bank SA v JB
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, principle of legal certainty, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2019054EN.01000402.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 7 November 2018 — SC Raiffeisen Bank SA v JB
(Case C-698/18)
(2019/C 54/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA

Defendant: JB

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular the 12th, 21st and 23rd recitals and Articles 2(b), 6(1), 7(2) and 8 thereof, permit, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy and the principle of equivalence and effectiveness, a set of means of legal recourse that consists in an ordinary legal action, not subject to any limitation period, to establish the unfairness of certain terms in a consumer contract and an ordinary legal action of a personal and pecuniary nature that is subject to a limitation period, which is used in pursuit of the directive’s aim of eliminating the effects of all obligations arising and performed under clauses which are found to be unfair to consumers?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those same provisions preclude an interpretation, derived from application of the principle of the certainty of civil-law legal relationships, according to which the objective point in time by which the consumer must have known or should have known of the existence of the unfair terms is the time at which the loan agreement with that consumer came to an end?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-697/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2018 — Televisión Autonómica de Castilla La Mancha v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, economic activity, provision of services, public institution, tax relief, taxpayer, television








C_2019072EN.01000601.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2018 — Televisión Autonómica de Castilla La Mancha v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)
(Case C-697/18)
(2019/C 72/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Televisión Autonómica de Castilla La Mancha

Defendant: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)

Questions referred







1.


Is it possible to treat entities like those described, together with the bodies governed by public law which create them, as single taxable persons for VAT purposes, as defined by Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC? (1)











2.


If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, is it necessary to consider that the funding received by such entities from the bodies governed by public law which create them cannot under any circumstances be classified as consideration for the provision of services subject to VAT?










3.


As regards the deduction of input VAT payments by those entities, must it be the single taxable person which, as such, calculates the deductible amount by applying Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the basis of the activities which it carries out?










4.


In particular, and as far as public service television activities are concerned, assuming that those entities are capable of having a dual nature and also assuming that, together with the bodies governed by public law which are their majority shareholders, they are treated as single taxable persons, must only the portion of input VAT which can be considered to relate to their economic activity be treated as deductible?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-685/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND
Date: 2018-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Lithuania, executive power, independence of the judiciary, judicial power, public prosecutor's department








C_2019016EN.01003101.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/31






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND
(Case C-685/18)
(2019/C 16/39)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: ND

Questions referred







1.


Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) (1) is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?










2.


If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)?










3.


Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria?










4.


Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States?






(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).