# Official Journal C 309/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.309.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5624 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.309.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 309

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5624 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 309/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 309/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 309/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2013/C 309/03 | New national sides of euro circulation coins | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 309/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2013/C 309/03

New national sides of euro circulation coins

3

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2013/C 309/04 | Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2013 in Case E-7/12 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit) | 4 |
| 2013/C 309/05 | Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-9/12 — Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons) | 5 |
| 2013/C 309/06 | Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-15/12 — Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State (Article 3 EEA — Article 7 EEA — Form and method of implementation of directives — Directive 2004/38/EC — Free movement of EEA nationals — Restrictions on right of entry — Procedural safeguards) | 6 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2013/C 309/04

Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2013 in Case E-7/12 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit)

(Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit)

4

2013/C 309/05

Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-9/12 — Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

5

2013/C 309/06

Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-15/12 — Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State (Article 3 EEA — Article 7 EEA — Form and method of implementation of directives — Directive 2004/38/EC — Free movement of EEA nationals — Restrictions on right of entry — Procedural safeguards)

(Article 3 EEA — Article 7 EEA — Form and method of implementation of directives — Directive 2004/38/EC — Free movement of EEA nationals — Restrictions on right of entry — Procedural safeguards)

6

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 24.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2013/C 309/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.9.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.36625 (13/N) |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | Scotland | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | QMS Meat Quality Advertising Scheme |
| Legal basis | | Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.9.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.36625 (13/N)

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

Scotland

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

QMS Meat Quality Advertising Scheme

Legal basis

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

| | The Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 |
| --- | --- |

The Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Advertising (AGRI)

Form of aid

Other — Provision of services on preferential terms

Budget

Overall budget: GBP 8 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

1.4.2014-31.3.2017

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Quality Meat Scotland |
| --- |
| The Rural Centre |
| Ingliston |
| Midlothian |
| EH28 8NZ |
| UNITED KINGDOM |

Quality Meat Scotland

The Rural Centre

Ingliston

Midlothian

EH28 8NZ

UNITED KINGDOM

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 24.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 October 2013

2013/C 309/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3752 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4596 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7756 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2307 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1360 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,817 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 292,24 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7029 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1783 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4319 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7160 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4298 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4189 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6618 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6436 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7051 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 455,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,4643 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3693 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6141 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 081,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3562 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,255 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,7066 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,865 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9998 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7886 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,7840 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3752

JPY

Japanese yen

133,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,4596

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85160

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7756

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2307

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1360

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,817

HUF

Hungarian forint

292,24

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7029

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1783

RON

Romanian leu

4,4319

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7160

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4298

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4189

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6618

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6436

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7051

KRW

South Korean won

1 455,81

ZAR

South African rand

13,4643

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3693

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6141

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 081,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3562

PHP

Philippine peso

59,255

RUB

Russian rouble

43,7066

THB

Thai baht

42,865

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9998

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7886

INR

Indian rupee

84,7840

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 24.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/3

---

New national sides of euro circulation coins

2013/C 309/03

On 9 July 2013 the Council of the European Union decided that the Republic of Latvia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro on 1 January 2014 (1).

From 1 January 2014 the Republic of Latvia will therefore issue euro coins, subject to the approval by the ECB of the volume of the issue (cf. Article 128(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

Euro circulation coins have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs (2) with a view to informing all parties required to handle coins in the course of their work as well as the public at large.

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 EURO CENT | 2 EURO CENT | 5 EURO CENT | 10 EURO CENT |
| | | | |
| 20 EURO CENT | 50 EURO CENT | 1 EURO | 2 EURO |

Image

Image

Image

Image

1 EURO CENT

2 EURO CENT

5 EURO CENT

10 EURO CENT

Image

Image

Image

Image

20 EURO CENT

50 EURO CENT

1 EURO

2 EURO

Issuing country: Republic of Latvia

Date of issue: January 2014

Description of the designs: The 1-, 2- and 5-euro cent coins show the small coat of arms of the Republic of Latvia. At the bottom, the country of issuance ‘LATVIJA’. On the left, the year ‘2014’.

The 10-, 20- and 50-euro cent coins depict the large coat of arms of the Republic of Latvia. On the bottom, the year ‘2014’ and the country of issuance ‘LATVIJA’.

The 1- and 2-euro coins show a portrait of a Latvian folk-maid, originally depicted on the reverse of the 5-lats silver coin in 1929. On the left, in semi-circle, the word ‘LATVIJAS’ and the year ‘2014’ and on the right, in semi-circle, the word ‘REPUBLIKA’.

The coin's outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

The edge-lettering of the 2-euro coin is the first line of the State anthem — ‘DIEVS SVĒTĪ LATVIJU’ (‘GOD BLESS LATVIA’).

---

(1)  Council Decision of 9 July 2013 on the adoption by Latvia of the euro on 1 January 2014 (OJ L 195, 18.7.2013, p. 24).

(2)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1, OJ C 254, 20.10.2006, p. 6 and OJ C 248, 23.10.2007, p. 8 for a reference to the other euro coins.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 24.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 July 2013

in Case E-7/12

Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit)

2013/C 309/04

In Case E-7/12, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under Articles 37 and 46 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for a declaration of a failure to act and non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby declares:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the claim that ESA failed to act in relation to the remaining documents in Case No 34250; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the claim that ESA failed to act in relation to the remaining documents in Case No 34250;

| 2. | Dismisses the action to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders ESA to pay the costs concerning the failure to act, its own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability and half of those of the applicants concerning the action for non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ESA to pay the costs concerning the failure to act, its own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability and half of those of the applicants concerning the action for non-contractual liability;

| 4. | Orders the applicants to pay half of their own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicants to pay half of their own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability.

---

| 24.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 July 2013

in Case E-9/12

Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 309/05

In Case E-9/12, Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures, the sale of real estate and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf., the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the application;

| 2. | orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

| 24.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 July 2013

in Case E-15/12

Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State

(Article 3 EEA — Article 7 EEA — Form and method of implementation of directives — Directive 2004/38/EC — Free movement of EEA nationals — Restrictions on right of entry — Procedural safeguards)

2013/C 309/06

In Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland) under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Under Article 7 EEA, an EEA/EFTA State has the choice of form and method when implementing an act corresponding to Directive 2004/38/EC into its legal order. Depending on the legal context, the implementation of a directive does not necessarily require legislative action, as long as it is implemented with unquestionable binding force and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 7 EEA, an EEA/EFTA State has the choice of form and method when implementing an act corresponding to Directive 2004/38/EC into its legal order. Depending on the legal context, the implementation of a directive does not necessarily require legislative action, as long as it is implemented with unquestionable binding force and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty.

| 2. | It is sufficient for an EEA State to base a decision under Article 27 of the Directive not to grant an individual who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory on grounds of public policy and/or public security only upon a danger assessment, which assesses the role of the individual in the accession of a new charter to an organisation of which the individual is a member and which concludes that the organisation is associated with organised crime and that where such an organisation has managed to establish itself, organised crime has increased. It is further required that the assessment is based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Moreover, this personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, and the restriction on the right to entry must be proportionate. In the light of the relevant matters of fact and law, it is for the national court to determine whether those requirements are met. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is sufficient for an EEA State to base a decision under Article 27 of the Directive not to grant an individual who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory on grounds of public policy and/or public security only upon a danger assessment, which assesses the role of the individual in the accession of a new charter to an organisation of which the individual is a member and which concludes that the organisation is associated with organised crime and that where such an organisation has managed to establish itself, organised crime has increased. It is further required that the assessment is based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Moreover, this personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, and the restriction on the right to entry must be proportionate. In the light of the relevant matters of fact and law, it is for the national court to determine whether those requirements are met.

| 3. | An EEA State cannot be obliged to declare an organisation and membership therein unlawful before it can deny a member of that organisation who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory pursuant to Article 27 of the Directive if recourse to such a declaration is not thought appropriate in the circumstances. However, the EEA State must have clearly defined its standpoint as regards the activities of that organisation and, considering the activities to be a threat to public policy and/or public security, it must have taken administrative measures to counteract those activities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

An EEA State cannot be obliged to declare an organisation and membership therein unlawful before it can deny a member of that organisation who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory pursuant to Article 27 of the Directive if recourse to such a declaration is not thought appropriate in the circumstances. However, the EEA State must have clearly defined its standpoint as regards the activities of that organisation and, considering the activities to be a threat to public policy and/or public security, it must have taken administrative measures to counteract those activities.

| 4. | In order to invoke a public policy and/or public security threat under Article 27(1) of the Directive it does not suffice that an EEA State has defined as punishable, conduct that consists of conniving with another person in the commission of an act, the commission of which is part of the activities of a criminal organisation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In order to invoke a public policy and/or public security threat under Article 27(1) of the Directive it does not suffice that an EEA State has defined as punishable, conduct that consists of conniving with another person in the commission of an act, the commission of which is part of the activities of a criminal organisation.

| 5. | The national administrative authorities must ensure that there is sufficient evidence to conclude under Article 27(2) of the Directive that the individual concerned was likely to engage in personal conduct that represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. It is for the national court to determine, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether this is the case. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The national administrative authorities must ensure that there is sufficient evidence to conclude under Article 27(2) of the Directive that the individual concerned was likely to engage in personal conduct that represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. It is for the national court to determine, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether this is the case.

---