do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9212 — MinebeaMitsumi/U-Shin) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, machinery, merger control, spare part








C_2018430EN.01000701.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9212 — MinebeaMitsumi/U-Shin)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 430/07)

1.   
On 22 November 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:






—


MinebeaMitsumi Inc. (‘MinebeaMitsumi’, Japan),










—


U-Shin Ltd (‘U-Shin’, Japan).




MinebeaMitsumi acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the whole of U-Shin.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 7 November 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


MinebeaMitsumi is active in machine components, electronic devices and components, and electronic products;










—


U-Shin is active in the design, production and supply of machined components and electronic devices used, inter alia, in the automotive industry, the industrial equipment industry and the home security industry.






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.9212 — MinebeaMitsumi/U-Shin
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.
Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1471 of 19 September 2018 on the proposed citizens' initiative entitled ‘STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties’ (OJ L 246, 2.10.2018)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU financing, European citizenship, fraud, fraud against the EU, petition








L_2018304EN.01003501.xml










29.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 304/35







Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1471 of 19 September 2018 on the proposed citizens' initiative entitled ‘STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties’
         

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 246 of 2 October 2018
)


On page 47, in recital 8:
for:

               ‘For those reasons, the proposed citizens' initiative entitled “STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties” does not fall manifestly outside of the framework of the Commission's powers to submit a legal acts of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and should therefore be registered.’,
read:

               ‘For those reasons, the proposed citizens' initiative entitled “STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties” does not fall manifestly outside of the framework of the Commission's powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and should therefore be registered.’.
Case C-744/18 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2018 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2018 in Case T-623/16, Volkswagen AG v EUIPO
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019238EN.01000301.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/3






Appeal brought on 29 November 2018 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2018 in Case T-623/16, Volkswagen AG v EUIPO
(Case C-744/18 P)
(2019/C 238/03)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 21 May 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-600/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Annulment of a listing by the General Court — Re-listing — Evidence dating from before the first listing — Facts known before the first listing — Res judicata — Scope — Legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expectations — Effective judicial protection — Reasons for the listing relating to logistical support to the Government of Iran — Scope — Activity of transporting crude oil)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, crude oil, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, maritime transport, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, trade restriction








C_2019035EN.01000201.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union
(Case C-600/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court - Re-listing - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Res judicata - Scope - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Effective judicial protection - Reasons for the listing relating to logistical support to the Government of Iran - Scope - Activity of transporting crude oil))
(2019/C 35/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: National Iranian Tanker Company (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and by R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders National Iranian Tanker Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case C-548/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Goslar v baumgarten sports & more GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Taxation of professional football player agencies — Payment by instalments and subject to a condition — Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of the tax)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, payment, professional sport, tax collection, taxable income, taxpayer








C_2019035EN.01000701.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/7






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Goslar v baumgarten sports & more GmbH
(Case C-548/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Taxation of professional football player agencies - Payment by instalments and subject to a condition - Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of the tax))
(2019/C 35/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Goslar

Defendant: baumgarten sports & more GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 64(1) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the chargeable event and chargeability of a tax on the supply of agency services for professional football players by an agent, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid in conditional instalments over several years further to the placement, from being regarded as occurring or taking effect when the player is placed.


(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 November 2018 on the draft Council decision on the accession of Samoa to the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part (12281/2018 — C8-0434/2018 — 2018/0291(NLE))
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on Fisheries, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Samoa, accession to an agreement, cooperation agreement (EU), economic cooperation, interim agreement (EU)








C_2020363EN.01037901.xml










28.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/379






P8_TA(2018)0469
Accession of Samoa to the EU-Pacific States Interim Partnership Agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 November 2018 on the draft Council decision on the accession of Samoa to the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part (12281/2018 — C8-0434/2018 — 2018/0291(NLE))
(Consent)
(2020/C 363/41)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12281/2018),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0434/2018),










—


having regard to its resolution of 4 October 2016 on the future of ACP-EU relations beyond 2020 (1),










—


having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2011 on the Interim Partnership Agreement between the Pacific States, on the one part, and the European Community, on the other part (2),










—


having regard to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (the Cotonou Agreement) (3),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A8-0376/2018),












1.


Gives its consent to Samoa’s accession to the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Samoa.






(1)  OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 2.

(2)  OJ C 136 E, 11.5.2012, p. 19.

(3)  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.
Case C-264/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — Harry Mensing v Finanzamt Hamm (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 314 — Article 316 — Article 322 — Special arrangements for works of art — Margin scheme — Taxable dealers — Supply of works of art by the creator or his successors in title — Intra-Community transactions — National tax authorities’ refusal to grant a taxable person the right to opt for application of the margin scheme — Conditions under which applicable — Right to deduct input tax — Works of art, collectors’ items and antiques)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, supply, tax relief, taxpayer, work of art








C_2019035EN.01000401.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — Harry Mensing v Finanzamt Hamm
(Case C-264/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 314 - Article 316 - Article 322 - Special arrangements for works of art - Margin scheme - Taxable dealers - Supply of works of art by the creator or his successors in title - Intra-Community transactions - National tax authorities’ refusal to grant a taxable person the right to opt for application of the margin scheme - Conditions under which applicable - Right to deduct input tax - Works of art, collectors’ items and antiques))
(2019/C 35/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Harry Mensing

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamm

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer may opt for the application of the margin scheme to the input supply of works of art which were supplied in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply, by the creator or his successors in title, when those persons do not fall within the categories of persons listed in Article 314 of that directive.










2.


A taxable dealer may not opt for the application of the margin scheme laid down in Article 316(1)(b) of the VAT Directive to an input supply of works of art that were supplied to him in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply and, at the same time, claim a right to deduct input VAT in the situations in which such a right is precluded under Article 322(b) of that directive, if that latter provision has not been transposed into national law.






(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Case T-682/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01003901.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/39






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen)
(Case T-682/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 44/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2085/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case T-763/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark welly — Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS — 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: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, confectionery product, registered trade mark, rice, sweetener, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01004302.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/43






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)
(Case T-763/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark welly - Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS - 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)))
(2019/C 44/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersnack Group and Septona.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-372/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK — Earlier EU figurative mark LV — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark)
Date: 2018-11-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01003201.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/32






Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee-Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)
(Case T-372/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark LV POWER ENERGY DRINK - Earlier EU figurative mark LV - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Earlier decisions of EUIPO recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark))
(2019/C 44/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bee-Fee Group Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: L. Karpierz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Louis Vuitton Malletier and Bee-Fee Group.

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 29 March 2017 (Case R 906/2016-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier;










3.


Orders Bee-Fee Group Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier.






(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.