do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-51/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1) — Administrative practice of imposing VAT on the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, artist's resale right, goods and services, infringement of EU law, literary and artistic property, work of art








C_2019065EN.01001802.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/18






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-51/18) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1) - Administrative practice of imposing VAT on the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right))
(2019/C 65/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by providing that the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right is subject to value added tax, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;










2.


Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case C-796/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2018 — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: public contract, services of general interest, software








C_2019093EN.01003001.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2018 — Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH v Stadt Köln
(Case C-796/18)
(2019/C 93/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Informatikgesellschaft für Software-Entwicklung (ISE) mbH

Defendant: Stadt Köln

Party to the proceedings: Land Berlin

Questions referred







1.


Does the provision of software by one public administrative authority to another public administrative authority, which is agreed in writing and linked to a cooperation agreement, constitute a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 2.1(5) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) or a contract within the meaning of Article 12(4) of that directive which — at least initially, subject to Article 12(4)(a) to (c) thereof — comes within the scope of the directive if, although the software recipient does not have to pay a price or reimbursement costs for the software, the cooperation agreement connected with the provision of the software provides that each cooperation partner — and therefore also the software recipient — is required to make available to the other partner, free of charge, any of its own further developments of the software that it may create — but is not obliged to create — in the future?




Only if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






2.


Pursuant to Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU, does the subject matter of the cooperation of the participating contracting authorities have to be the actual public services that are to be provided to citizens and must be provided jointly, or is it sufficient if the cooperation relates to activities that in some way serve the public services that are to be provided in the same way but do not necessarily have to be provided jointly?










3.


Does a so-called — unwritten — prohibition on placing a party in a position of advantage (‘Besserstellungsverbot’) apply in the context of Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and, if so, with what content does it apply?






(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) mission
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








C_2018457EN.01001201.xml










19.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/12






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) mission
(2018/C 457/05)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority's ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA's Managements Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






i.


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA's Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2));










ii.


made public on EFSA's website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published; and










iii.


made available through the Article 36 Search Tool to the organisations, providing contact details and the organisations' specific fields of competence.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, under the following links:






i.


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA's Management Board on [12/12/2018] – [http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/181212];










ii.


the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/art36listg.pdf; and










iii.


Article 36 Search Tool – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/art36/search.




EFSA will keep this notification updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9154 — DV4/ABP/OMERS/QIA/Real Estate JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019024EN.01000201.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9154 — DV4/ABP/OMERS/QIA/Real Estate JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 24/03)
On 19 December 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 32018M9154. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-17/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 19 and 29 and Article 135(1)(l) — Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof — Exemption for lettings of immovable property — Rental contract concerning an immovable property used for commercial purposes and the movable property necessary for that use — Supply of services relating to that immovable property which gave rise to the deduction of VAT — Adjustment)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business activity, business lease, hiring, provision of services, tax exemption, tax relief, transfer of businesses, transfer of property








C_2019065EN.01001801.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/18






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA
(Case C-17/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 19 and 29 and Article 135(1)(l) - Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof - Exemption for lettings of immovable property - Rental contract concerning an immovable property used for commercial purposes and the movable property necessary for that use - Supply of services relating to that immovable property which gave rise to the deduction of VAT - Adjustment))
(2019/C 65/22)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureș

Parties in the main proceedings

Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’, within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering the transaction by which an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes is let with all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use, even if the lessee pursues the activity of the lessor under the same name.










2.


Article 135(1)(l) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a lease contract for an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes and for all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use constitutes a single supply in which the letting of the immovable property is the principal supply.






(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Case C-367/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — S v EA, EB, EC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Article 4(2)(e) — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 7(1)(e) — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin — Application to amend the product specification — Ham originating from the Black Forest, Germany (‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’) — Requirements to package in the area of production — Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 or of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Baden-Württemberg, Germany, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, packaging, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, smoked product








C_2019065EN.01000702.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — S v EA, EB, EC
(Case C-367/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 4(2)(e) - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 7(1)(e) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin - Application to amend the product specification - Ham originating from the Black Forest, Germany (‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’) - Requirements to package in the area of production - Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 or of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012))
(2019/C 65/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: S

Defendants: EA, EB, EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Regulation No 510/2006, and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to package a product covered by a protected geographical indication in its geographical area of production is justified, under Article 4(2)(e), if it constitutes a necessary and proportionate means to safeguard the quality of the product, to guarantee its origin or to ensure the verification of the specification of the protected geographical indication. It is for the national court to assess whether that requirement is duly justified by one of the objectives mentioned above, regarding the protected geographical indication ‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’.


(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Case C-800/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2018 by Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-122/17: Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019295EN.01000202.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/2






Appeal brought on 19 December 2018 by Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-122/17: Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo
(Case C-800/18 P)
(2019/C 295/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (represented by: I. Pakidanska and D. Dimitrova, advokati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Devin AD, European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 11 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall bear its own costs.
Case C-374/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v A- Brauerei (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Real property transfer tax — Exemption — Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Justification)
Date: 2018-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, merger, property tax, tax relief, transfer of businesses








C_2019065EN.01000801.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v A- Brauerei
(Case C-374/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Real property transfer tax - Exemption - Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Justification))
(2019/C 65/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt B

Defendant: A-Brauerei

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a tax advantage, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in exempting from real property transfer tax the transfer of ownership of a property which occurred because of a restructuring procedure involving only companies of the same group, linked by a shareholding of at least 95 % during a minimum, uninterrupted period of five years prior to that procedure and of five years thereafter, does not fulfil the condition relating to the selectivity of the advantage concerned, laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.


(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.