do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-313/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Admissibility — Procedure for modifying the application — Need to modify the pleas in law and arguments — Restrictive measures adopted against the Syrian Arab Republic — List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name)
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2019093EN.01000901.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-313/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Admissibility - Procedure for modifying the application - Need to modify the pleas in law and arguments - Restrictive measures adopted against the Syrian Arab Republic - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name))
(2019/C 93/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kalėda and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 March 2017, Haswani v Council (T-231/15, not published, EU:T:2017:200);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Orders the costs to be reserved.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/112 of 24 January 2019 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 31st partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2019023EN.01001801.xml










25.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 23/18








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/112
of 24 January 2019
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 31st partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080


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),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.












(2)


In the light of the tenders received for the 31st partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.












(3)


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
For the 31st partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 22 January 2019, the minimum selling price shall be 158,50 EUR/100 kg.


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, 24 January 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






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

(2)  
            OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).
Case C-42/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 January 2019 — SONAECOM, SGPS S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, consultancy, market research, parent company, provision of services, service, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2019139EN.01003301.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 January 2019 — SONAECOM, SGPS S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-42/19)
(2019/C 139/31)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SONAECOM, SGPS S.A.

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with the deductibility rules laid down in the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) specifically Articles 4(1) and (2) and 17(1), (2) and (5), to deduct tax borne by the appellant, Sonaecom SGPS, in respect of consultancy services connected with a market study commissioned with a view to acquiring shares, where that acquisition did not materialise?










2.


Is it compatible with the deductibility rules laid down in the Sixth VAT Directive, specifically Articles 4(1) and (2) and 17(1), (2) and (5), to deduct tax borne by the appellant, Sonaecom SGPS, in respect of the payment to BCP of a commission for organising and putting together a bond loan, allegedly taken out with a view to integrating the financial structure of its affiliated companies, and which, since those investments failed to materialise, was ultimately transferred to Sonae, SGPS, the parent company of the group?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-785/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY — Earlier word mark SAM — Relative ground for refusal — Extinction of rights due to acquiescence — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2019103EN.01003601.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/36






Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY)
(Case T-785/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY - Earlier word mark SAM - Relative ground for refusal - Extinction of rights due to acquiescence - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 103/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Time Gate GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 974/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Time Gate and Mr Ilhan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ercan Ilhan to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case T-181/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019103EN.01003902.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/39






Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)
(Case T-181/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 103/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 (Case R 845/2017-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign TAKE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9229 — FSD/Tower Europe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2019030EN.01000701.xml










24.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9229 — FSD/Tower Europe)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 30/08)

1.   
On 17 January 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Financière SNOP Dunois S.A. (‘FSD’, France),










—


Tower Automotive Holdings Europe B.V. (‘Tower Europe’, the Netherlands).




FSD acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Tower Europe.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for FSD: manufacture and sale of metal parts for the automotive industry. It also supplies tooling and, to a lesser degree, metal presses for the automotive industry,
—   for Tower Europe: manufacture and sale of engineered structural metal components and assemblies for the automotive industry, including body-structure stampings, frame and other chassis structures and welded assemblies.


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.9229 — FSD/Tower Europe
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 24 January 2019 in the case of D and E (Case E-2/19)
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU visa policy, Liechtenstein, dependant, family migration, foreign national, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, residence permit








C_2019197EN.01003501.xml










13.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 197/35






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 24 January 2019 in the case of D and E
(Case E-2/19)
(2019/C 197/07)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 24 January 2019 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 January 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of D and E, on the following question:
Must Directive 2004/38, in particular Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(d) thereof, and the first sentence of Point III of [EEA Joint Committee] Decision No 191/1999 be interpreted as meaning that a family member of a national of an EU Member State has the right to obtain a permit of the same validity as that of the person on whom he depends even if the person on whom he depends obtained the right of residence in Liechtenstein only on the basis of national law and not on the basis of EEA law?