type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
By his last will and testament, which was admitted to probate in 1890, James L. Hurley, the owner of an undivided one-half interest in a property on Washington Street, in Hagerstown, Maryland, known as the Lyceum Building, devised the same to a trustee upon the following trust:
 "said trustee to have the control and management of said property thus devised to him in trust and use the rents, interest or proceeds thereof in a judicious manner towards the support and maintenance of my said son, William J. Hurley, or pay the said rents, interest or proceeds over to the said William J. Hurley as he may deem best for the welfare of my said son for and during the life of my said son, and after his death the property thus devised in trust shall be equally divided among the children of my said son, legitimately begotten, and if he dies without any legitimate issue then said property is to be equally divided between the brother and sisters of my said son, William J. Hurley."
 The other undivided one-half interest in said property was purchased by the said William J. Hurley in 1906, and he and the trustee appointed by the court in the place of the trustee named in said will, on the 1st of October, 1919, executed *Page 614
 a lease of a part of said property, spoken of as the west storeroom, to Samuel M. Shafer for the term of five years, beginning on the 1st of April, 1920, for the annual rental of $2,100, and on the 1st of January, 1921, the said William J. Hurley and the Hagerstown Trust Company, substituted trustee under the will of James L. Hurley, executed a lease of the remaining part of said property to James Koliopulos, at the annual rental of $2,100, for the term of five years, beginning on April 1st, 1919, and ending on March 31st, 1924, "with the privilege re-rental." The lease to Koliopulos was on the 31st of May, 1921, assigned by him to Charles M. Lumm, and on the same day the Hagerstown Trust Company, trustee, and William J. Hurley executed an agreement with Charles M. Lumm extending the term of said lease to March 31st, 1926. William J. Hurley died on April 25th, 1922, at the age of seventy-two years, without leaving a child or children, and some time thereafter the Circuit Court for Washington County, in a proceeding instituted therein, held that the undivided one-half interest of James L. Hurley in said property vested under his will in the brothers and sisters of William J. Hurley, subject to be divested by the birth of a legitimate child of William J. Hurley, and in proceedings for a sale of the property for the purpose of partition, to which the lessees were not made parties, the court appointed trustees to sell the property. Thereafter some of the parties interested in the proceeds of the sale to be made by the trustees appointed by the court filed the bill of complaint in this case against said trustees and the two lessees, in which, after setting out the facts we have referred to, they allege that the substituted trustee under the will of James L. Hurley had no authority to lease the property for terms extending beyond the life of William J. Hurley; that said leases are therefore null and void, and that if the trustees appointed by the court were to sell the property subject to said leases it would result in great loss to the parties interested. The prayer of the bill is for an order of *Page 615
 court directing the trustees to sell the property free of the leases, and for general relief.
 The lessees answered the bill, alleging that the lessors not only had the power and authority to make said leases, and "to grant the extension of the Lumm lease, but that it was the duty of the trustee to lease the property" for such reasonable terms as would be to the best advantage of the parties interested; that owing to the location and character of the property it was not adapted to any but business purposes, that a reasonable rental therefor could not have been obtained without renting it "for a reasonable term of years," that the terms for which the properties were rented were reasonable terms, and that by so renting the property a "much larger rental was obtained" than could have been obtained by renting them from year to year or for terms to expire at the death of William J. Hurley, that at the time the leases were executed it was the custom in Hagerstown to lease such properties for a term of years; that the properties could not have been rented for a reasonable sum for a term less than five years, and that at the time the leases were executed the probability was that they would not extend beyond the lifetime of William J. Hurley. The answer of the lessees also denies that a sale of the property by the trustees subject to the leases will result in a loss to the parties interested. The answer of Richard H. Sweeney, one of the trustees appointed by the court to sell the property, who also appears as attorney for the plaintiffs in the bill, admits all the averments of the bill, while the answer of the Hagerstown Trust Company, the other trustee appointed by the court to sell the property, who was also the substituted trustee under the will of James L. Hurley, admits all the facts alleged in the bill, except the averments that the leases are void, and that the sale of the property subject to said leases would result in a loss to the parties concerned, and alleges that the leases were executed at the request of the life tenant, William J. Hurley, who, so far as it knew, was at that time in sound health; that it did not consider the terms of said leases unreasonable, but *Page 616
 considered them to the advantage of the life tenant and the trust estate, and that they were within "the discretionary power of the trustee."
 Counsel for the plaintiffs and Samuel M. Shafer filed an agreement,
 "1. That, owing to the location and the character of the property leased to Samuel M. Shafer, mentioned in the bill of complaint, it was and is not adapted for any other purpose than a business property.
 "2. That it is and was at the time the said lease was entered into, the custom in Hagerstown, Maryland, to lease property similarly adapted for a term of years.
 "3. That the term of the said lease, to wit, five years, was a reasonable term, and the rent reserved in the said lease was a fair rental for the said property at the time the said lease was entered into.
 "4. That the said William J. Hurley died on April 25th, 1922, at the age of 72 years."
 Counsel for the plaintiffs and Charles M. Lumm also filed an agreement as to the facts set out in the first, second and fourth paragraphs of the above agreement.
 Charles R. Grove, a witness for the plaintiffs, who said that he had been engaged in the real estate business in Hagerstown for eighteen or twenty years, and was acquainted with the rental values of property on West Washington Street, testified on cross-examination that the fair rental value of the property occupied by Mr. Lumm under the lease in question was from $150 to $200 per month, and that the fair rental value of the property occupied by Mr. Shafer under his lease was about the same, that the property could not have been rented advantageously for a term less than five years, and that he did not think it would have been possible to rent property of that character under an agreement that the lease should terminate upon the death of any individual. Charles F. Strole, a witness for the defendants, *Page 617
 testified that he had been engaged in the real estate and insurance business in Hagerstown for nine years and was familiar with the values and rental values of properties on West Washington Street; that in his opinion the rental value of the property included in the Lumm lease was from $150 to $200 per month, and that the rental value of the property covered by the Shafer lease was "a little more," that the terms of five years mentioned in said leases were reasonable terms for property of that character, that they could not have been rented to advantage for a term of one year, and that in his opinion it would not have been possible to obtain a satisfactory rent for the properties under a lease for a term to end on the death of any person. H.J. Stallings, who stated that he had been in the real estate and insurance business in Hagerstown for seven years, and was familiar with the values of property on West Washington Street, testified that five years was a reasonable term for a lease of a business property on West Washington Street, that the fair rental value of the property occupied by Mr. Lumm was $175 per month; that in his opinion the property could not have been rented advantageously from year to year, and could not have been rented to a substantial party for a term ending on the death of a person. Charles O. Easton, another witness who was engaged in the real estate and insurance business in Hagerstown, testified to the same effect, and Samuel B. Loose, Esq., president of the Hagerstown Trust Company, testified that the Lumm lease was executed at the request of William J. Hurley. The defendants also offered in evidence a mortality table, which shows that the expectancy of life of a man seventy years of age is 8.48 years, and of a man seventy-one years of age is eight years.
 It thus appears from the admissions and agreements of the parties and the evidence in the case that the properties covered by the two leases in question were only adapted to business purposes; that it was the custom in Hagerstown to lease such properties for a term of years, that they could not *Page 618
 have been rented profitably for a year or from year to year, or for a term subject to be terminated by the death of William J. Hurley, that the term of five years was a reasonable and the customary one for such property in Hagerstown, and that the rent reserved in said leases was a fair and reasonable one, that William J. Hurley, in addition to an equitable life estate in an undivided one-half interest in said properties, was the owner in fee of the other undivided one-half interest, that said leases, and the extension of the Lumm lease, were executed by the trustee at his request and at a time when his expectancy of life was eight years, and there is no evidence in the case tending to support the averment of the bill that a sale of the property subject to the leases would result in a loss to the parties interested. Upon this state of facts, as disclosed by the record, we entirely concur in the conclusion reached by the court below that the lease to Samuel M. Shafer "is a valid and subsisting lease" of the property therein mentioned for the term of five years, ending on the 31st of March, 1925, and that the lease to James Koliopulos, assigned to Charles M. Lumm, "is a valid and subsisting lease" for the term of five years and the extension of said term to the 31st of March, 1926.
 In the case of In re Hubbell Trust, 135 Iowa 637, 13 L.R.A.N.S. 498, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a carefully prepared opinion delivered in 1907, states as the result of the decisions bearing upon the question of the power of trustees to lease property for terms extending beyond the duration of their trust, that "only general rules can be laid down for the guidance of trustees, and those deducible from the decisions contained in better considered opinions, and based, as we think, on the soundest reason, may be summarized thus, (1) the trustees may lease for such reasonable terms as are customary and essential to the proper care of and to procure a reasonable income from the property. (2) Such terms should not, save on showing of reasonable necessity to effectuate the purpose of the trust, extend beyond the period the *Page 619
 trust is likely to continue. (3) Should they extend unreasonably beyond such period, the excess only will be void. (4) Only upon a showing of such reasonable necessity when not given such power by the instrument creating the trust will the trustees be authorized to bind the estate so as to effectually deprive those ultimately entitled thereto of the property itself." The same statement is made in 26 R.C.L. sec. 154, p. 1301, "as a summary of the general rules deduced from well considered opinions, and based on sound reasoning," and it is there said: "The reasonableness of the term, which is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of a court of equity, depends on the character of the property, the purposes of the trust, the local custom in reference to the management of similar property, and the conditions existing at the execution of the lease." The will of James L. Hurley gave the trustee the control and management of the property and directed that the "rents" therefrom should be applied by him to the support and maintenance of his son, or paid over to his son. The duty thus imposed upon the trustee carried with it the implied power to lease the property, and the record shows that the leases in question were made for terms that were customary and necessary in Hagerstown in order to secure a fair income from the property, and that did not extend beyond the period the trust was likely to continue. The only case in this State reflecting at all upon the question is the case of Collins v. Foley, 63 Md. 158. There the testatrix devised the residue of her estate to a trustee to be held for the use and benefit of her son during his life, and after his death for the use and benefit of his children, c. The will authorized the trustee to change the investments, and gave him "full power to make and execute any and all leases" of "any and all portions" of the estate "as he may deem advantageous and proper." After stating that the general rule was that such powers "must be construed according to the intention of the parties," JUDGE MILLER said: "Applying this rule to the will before us, there seems to be no room for error or doubt. The testatrix *Page 620
 was possessed of farming lands in the country, and of vacant, unimproved lots in the City of Baltimore. The only mode by which the trustee, under the powers given him, could make the latter (without selling it) productive of income was to lease them, according to the prevailing system of tenure in that city, under leases for ninety-nine years, renewable forever; and when she gave him the power to make `all leases whatsoever of any and all portions' of the residue of her estate which he might deem advantageous and proper, it is perfectly clear she intended he should have the power to make such leases of her unimproved city lots, and that, too, whether they were made for the purpose of changing investments or not." The reasoning of the Court in that case tends to support our conclusion in this case that the implied power of the trustee to lease the property authorized him to make such leases as were customary and necessary in Hagerstown in order to secure a fair income from the property and within the probable duration of the trust. The cases of Bergengren v.Aldrich, 139 Mass. 259; Standard Metallic Paint Co. v.Prince Manufg. Co., 133 Pa. 474, and Gomez v. Gomez,147 N.Y. 195, when viewed in the light of the facts to which they applied, are not at variance with the general rules we have stated.
 The appellants also insist that the effect of the right of renewal in the Lumm lease was to convert that lease into a lease for a term of ten years, and as the lease was not acknowledged and recorded as required by section 1 of article 21 of the Code, the lessee, under the case of Falck v. Barlow, 110 Md. 159, took at most a tenancy from year to year. The cases of King v.Kaiser, 126 Md. 213; Read Drug Chemical Co. v. Nattans,129 Md. 67, and Thompson v. Thomas Thompson Co.,132 Md. 483, cited by the appellants, do not justify that view. On the contrary this Court in each of those cases sustained the right of the lessee to a specific performance of agreement to execute a new lease. The Lumm lease is for five years, "with the privilege (of) re-rental." This, *Page 621
 in terms, gives the lessee a privilege or option, which, if exercised by the lessee, would ordinarily entitle him at the end of the five year term to a new lease for a like term, and while a court of equity may, under certain circumstances, in order to protect the interest of the lessee, treat such a lease, when the option is exercised, as equivalent to a lease for the full period of the two terms, without any necessity for the execution of a new lease, on the principle that a court of equity regards that as done which ought to be done, it is said in 16 R.C.L. 889, that "according to the generally accepted rule the interest of the lessee, after the expiration of the original lease, is purely equitable as distinguished from a legal interest, the original lease not constituting a present demise for both the original term and the renewal term, but calling for the execution of a new lease or something equivalent to it." See also Spear v.Orendorf, 26 Md. 37. While in Stewart v. Gorter,70 Md. 242, the Court held that a lease for fourteen years, with a covenant to renew for another fourteen years, was "in effect" a lease for a longer period than fourteen years, within themeaning of the Act of 1888, providing that a lease for more than fifteen years should be redeemable at any time after the expiration of ten years from the date of the lease, in King v.Kaiser, supra, this Court, in construing a lease for five years, with an agreement for renewal for twenty years, and determining whether the agreement for a renewal operated as an extension of the term so as to bring the lease within the requirements of section 1 of article 21 of the Code in regard to acknowledging and recording, after holding that the agreement was not an extension of the lease, said in reference to the case ofStewart v. Gorter, supra, which was relied on by the appellant, that "a reading of that opinion cannot fail to disclose the fact that what had been attempted in that case was a deliberate evasion" of the Act of 1888, and that that case was "wholly inapplicable" to the case then under consideration. InKing v. Kaiser, supra, the Court also said that the agreement referred *Page 622
 to could be enforced if it "be regarded as merely in the light of an option."
 The privilege or option given in the Koliopulos lease had not, so far as the record discloses, been exercised, and the court below did not pass on the right of the assignee to a renewal of that lease. But for fear that our affirmance of the decree may be construed as sanctioning that right, we may add that under the general rules to which we have referred the privilege of or option for the renewal cannot be enforced. There is no evidence in the case to show that such an option was necessary for the proper administration of the trust confided to the substituted trustee or customary in Hagerstown, and a renewal of the lease for a like term of five years would extend the estate of the lessee unreasonably beyond the period the trust was likely to continue.
 The order for appeal in this case, which was filed in July 10th, 1923, directed the clerk to enter an appeal "from the opinion" of the court, and the appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, but as the decree was filed on the 15th of May, 1923, we think the appeal should be regarded as having been taken from the decree, and the motion to dismiss will, therefore, be overruled.
 Decree affirmed, the costs in this Court to be paid by thetrustees appointed by the court below to sell the property out ofthe proceeds of the sale. *Page 623


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS
 COM(94) 454 final
 Bruselas, 16.11.1994
 Propuesta de
 REGLAMENTO (CE) DEL CONSEJO
 le se modifica el Reglamento (CEE) n° 830/92 mediante la supresión del derecho anti dumping sobre
 determinados hilados de poliéster originarios de India
 (presentada por la Comisión)
 ---pagebreak--- EXPOSICIÓN DE MOTIVOS
 1. Mediante el Reglamento (CEE) n° 830/92(1) se estableció un derecho anti dumping definitivo
 sobre las importaciones de determinados hilados de poliéster originarios de Taiwan, Indonesia,
 India, la República Popular de China y Turquía.
 2. En diciembre de 1992 la Comisión abrió una reconsideración de este Reglamento respecto a
 los exportadores ... en India que solicitaron dicha reconsideración de acuerdo con el
 considerando (60) del Reglamento mencionado.
 3. La Comisión limitó el alcance de la reconsideración a las circunstancias modificadas respecto
 al dumping, ya que no se presentó ninguna solicitud de reconsideración de las conclusiones
 del perjuicio original ni se recibió ninguna indicación de que hubiesen cambiado las
 circunstancias del perjuicio.
 4. Puesto que la modificación alegada de las circunstancias cuestionaba que las conclusiones
 originales relativas al dumping continuasen siendo válidas, así como la representatividad de
 la muestra utilizada para establecer el valor normal y los precios de exportación, la Comisión
 consideró que estaba justificada una reconsideración del dumping establecido para todos los
 productores indios.
 5. Visto el gran número de exportadores afectados, se consideró adecuado establecer el valor
 normal y el precio de exportación sobre la base de una muestra de empresas de conformidad
 con lo dispuesto en el apartado 13 del artículo 2 del Reglamento de base.
 6. Los hechos establecidos definitivamente muestran que los márgenes de dumping, es decir, las
 cantidades en las que los valores normales establecidos superan al precio de exportación a la
 Comunidad, son insignificantes o inexistentes y deben considerarse mínimos.
 7. En estas circunstancias, la Comisión propone que puesto que los márgenes de dumping
 establecidos son mínimos, es necesario modificar el Reglamento (CEE) N° 830/92 y derogar
 los derechos establecidos sobre las importaciones del producto en cuestión procedentes de
 India.
 o DO r%nn°L«o 88 de 3.4.1992, p.l
 ---pagebreak--- Propuesta de
 REGLAMENTO (CE) DEL CONSEJO
 por el que se modifica el Reglamento (CEE) N° 830/92 mediante la supresión del derecho
 antidumping sobre determinados hilados de poliéster originarios de India
 EL CONSEJO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA,
 Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea,
 Visto el Reglamento (CEE) n° 2423/88 del Consejo, de 11 de julio de 1988, relativo a la defensa
 contra las importaciones que sean objeto de dumping o de subvenciones por parte de países no
 miembros de la Comunidad Económica Europea(l) cuya última modificación la constituye el
 Reglamento (CE) n° 522/94(2), y, en particular, su artículo 14,
 Vista la propuesta de la Comisión presentada, previas consultas en el seno del Comité consultivo,
 Considerando lo que sigue:
 A. PROCEDIMIENTO ANTERIOR
 (1 ) Mediante el Reglamento (CEE) n° 830/92(3), el Consejo estableció un derecho anti dumping
 definitivo sobre las importaciones de determinados hilados de poliéster de los códigos NC
 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 22 10, 5509 22 90, 5509 51 00 y 5509 53 00 originarios de
 Taiwan, Indonesia, India, la República Popular de China y Turquía.
 (2) En el considerando (60) del Reglamento (CEE) n° 830/92, el Consejo señaló que la
 Comisión estaría dispuesta a iniciar sin demora un procedimiento de reconsideración para
 los exportadores que presentaran pruebas suficientes a la Comisión de que no exportaron
 el producto considerado a la Comunidad durante el periodo de investigación inicial (1 de
 enero a 31 de diciembre de 1989), que sólo comenzaron a exportar después de dicho
 periodo o que tenían la firme intención de hacerlo y que no estaban relacionados o
 asociados con ninguna de las empresas sometidas al derecho antidumping (los
 denominados "recién llegados").
 (i) DO n°L 209 de 2.8.1988, p.l,
 (2)
 DO n° L 66 de 10.3.1994, p.10
 (3)
 D O n ° L 88 de 3.4.1992m p.l.
 ---pagebreak--- B. RECONSIDERACIÓN
 (3) Treinta empresas indias se dirigieron a la Comisión, alegando que no habían exportado el
 producto considerado durante el periodo de investigación y sólo habían empezado a hacerlo
 con posterioridad a dicho periodo. Alegaron también que no estaban relacionadas con
 ninguna de las empresas implicadas en la investigación inicial sometidas a los derechos
 antidumping y solicitaron la apertura de una reconsideración para las empresas "recién
 llegadas".
 (4) Estas empresas presentaron, previa solicitud, pruebas de los hechos que alegaban. Las
 pruebas aportadas por diecisiete de los productores interesados se han considerado
 suficientes para justificar la apertura de una reconsideración de conformidad con las
 disposiciones de los artículos 7 y 14 del Reglamento (CEE) n° 2423/88, en adelante el
 Reglamento de base, y la Comisión, previa consulta al Comité consultivo, inició(4) una
 reconsideración del Reglamento (CEE) n° 830/92 con respecto a estos productores.
 (5) El anuncio de apertura preveía además la posibilidad de hacer extensiva la reconsideración
 a cualquier otro productor de India, siempre que pudiera justificarse.
 (6) No sé presentó ninguna solicitud de reconsideración de las conclusiones iniciales relativas
 al perjuicio ni se recibió ninguna indicación de que hubiesen cambiado las circunstancias
 del perjuicio tal y como se habían establecido inicialmente.
 (7) En el curso de la investigación se comprobó que:
 i. se había producido un aumento sustancial de las importaciones en la Comunidad del
 producto (de 3.000 toneladas en el periodo de investigación inicial a 11.000
 toneladas en el año 1992), que sólo podía atribuirse a los productores afectados por
 la investigación inicial o a otras empresas desconocidas;
 ii. la media de los precios de exportación había descendido en más del 25% desde 1989;
 iii. durante el mismo periodo, la rupia india se había devaluado un 70%;
 iv. la economía india se había liberalizado progresivamente, lo que produjo la
 eliminación de un gran número de obstáculos internos al comercio, gravámenes y
 regímenes de restituciones.
 («) DO
 n r i n°C
 «o 339, 22.12.1992, p.2.
 ---pagebreak--- (8) La repercusión potencial de los dos últimos elementos en el precio del producto similar en
 el mercado interior (aumento del precio de las materias primas importadas y algunas
 reducciones de los derechos de importación) y la evolución general del precio de
 exportación ponían en tela de juicio la validez de las conclusiones iniciales sobre el
 dumping, basadas en la situación en 1989, y el mayor volumen de las exportaciones
 permitía dudar sobre la representatividad actual de la muestra utilizada en aquel momento
 para establecer el valor normal y el precio de exportación.
 (9) En estas circunstancias, la Comisión consideró que se justificaba una reconsideración del
 dumping establecido para todos los productores indios.
 C PROCEDIMIENTO ACTUAL
 (10) Visto el gran número de exportadores afectados, unos cuarenta y tres de la investigación
 inicial y diecisiete recién llegados, se consideró conveniente, al igual que en la
 investigación inicial, establecer el valor normal y el precio de exportación a partir de una
 muestra de empresas de conformidad con lo establecido en el apartado 13 del artículo 2 del
 Reglamento de base.
 (11) Con vistas a garantizar que los resultados de este muestreo no fuesen significativamente
 diferentes de los que habrían resultado de una investigación de todos los productores
 indios, la selección de la muestra se basó, de acuerdo con la práctica habitual, en los
 criterios de volumen de exportaciones y ventas interiores del producto similar, tipo de
 producto tanto en India como en la Comunidad, tamaño de las empresas y su ubicación.
 Sobre esta base se seleccionaron cinco productores que representan, en su totalidad,
 aproximadamente el 33% de las exportaciones de India a la Comunidad del producto
 considerado.
 (12) Al igual que en la investigación inicial, se informó al " Synthetic and Rayon Textile Export
 Promotion Council" (SRTEPC), querepresentaprácticamente todos los exportadores indios
 del producto, acerca de las empresas seleccionadas, los criterios utilizados y la intención
 de la Comisión de aplicar el resultado medio ponderado de la investigación de la muestra
 a todas las empresas indias a que se refería en el procedimiento. Aunque el SRTEPC no
 formuló ninguna objeción con respecto a la muestra o a la metodología, tres productores
 indios siguieron pidiendo que se determinasen, con respecto a ellos, márgenes de dumping
 individuales.
 (13) Puesto que la consideración individual de estos tres productores indios no resultaba
 excesivamente gravosa y no retrasaba la investigación, la Comisión investigó a estas tres
 empresas por separado.
 ---pagebreak--- (14) La Comisión llevó a cabo investigaciones in situ en los locales de las siguientes empresas:
 Empresas utilizadas en la muestra
 Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd.
 Rajasthan Textile Mills (prop. Sutlej Cotton Mills)
 The Eastern Spinning Mills Industries Ltd.
 Sree Valliappa Textiles Ltd.
 Coats Viyella (India) Ltd.
 Empresas que solicitaron una investigación individual
 Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd.
 Soundararaja Mills Ltd.
 Deepak Spinners Lid.
 D. RESULTADO DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN
 1 Valor normal
 (15) El valor normal se estableció en general basándose en el precio comparable realmente
 pagado o por pagar en el curso de operaciones comerciales normales por el producto
 similar en India.
 (16) En los casos en que un tipo particular de producto exportado a la Comunidad no se vendía
 en el mercado interior, o cuando tales ventas eran insuficientes o se realizaban con
 pérdidas, el valor normal se calculó basándose en el coste de producción más un margen
 de beneficios razonable. Los gastos de venta, administrativos y demás gastos generales
 incluidos en el coste de producción y los márgenes de beneficio se calcularon por
 referencia a los gastos realizados y los beneficios obtenidos por el exportador con las
 ventas lucrativas de otros tipos de productos similares vendidos en cantidades suficientes
 en el mercado interior.
 (17) En un caso no fue posible seguir este método para establecer el margen de beneficios, ya
 que se comprobó que uno de los exportadores no había realizado ventas del producto
 similar en el mercado interior durante el periodo de investigación. En este caso, el margen
 de beneficios utilizado fue el beneficio medio ponderado obtenido con las ventas lucrativas
 de otros tipos de productos similares en el mercado interior por todos los demás
 exportadores investigados.
 ---pagebreak--- 2. Precios de exportación
 (18) Los precios de exportación se determinaron basándose en los precios realmente pagados
 o por pagar por el producto vendido para su exportación a la Comunidad.
 3. Comparación
 (19) El valor normal por tipo de producto se comparó con los precios de exportación del tipo
 correspondiente, transacción por transacción, en la fase "en fábrica" y en la misma fase
 comercial. Con el fin de conseguir una comparación equitativa, el valor normal se ajustó
 de conformidad con las disposiciones de los apartados 9 y 10 del artículo 2 del Reglamento
 de base, con el fin de tener en cuenta las diferencias que afectan a la comparabilidad de los
 precios y relacionadas con los gravámenes a la importación e impuestos indirectos y las
 diferencias en los gastos de venta derivados de las condiciones de venta. Los ajustes
 solicitados para tener en cuenta las diferencias anteriormente mencionadas se limitaron a
 aquellos para los que se presentaron pruebas satisfactorias de que tenían una relación
 directa con las ventas en consideración. Concretamente, de conformidad con la letra b) del
 apartado 10 del artículo 2 del Reglamento de base se tuvieron en cuenta los gravámenes
 a la importación de las materias primas incorporadas físicamente al producto similar
 cuando se destinaba al consumo en la India y no recaudados para el producto exportado a
 la Comunidad.
 4. Márgenes de dumping
 (20) El examen de los hechos mostró que los márgenes de dumping, es decir, los importes en
 que los valores normales establecidos superaban a los precios de exportación a la
 Comunidad eran insignificantes o inexistentes y debían, por tanto, considerarse mínimos.
 (21) Los márgenes de dumping medios ponderados para cada exportador, expresados como
 porcentaje de los precios CIF en la frontera comunitaria, fueron los siguientes:
 (i) Empresas utilizadas en la muestra:
 Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd. 1,97%
 Rajasthan Textile Mills (prop. Sutlej Cotton Mills) 0,01%
 The Eastern Spinning Mills Industries Ltd. 0,00%
 Sree Valliappa Textiles Ltd. 0,67%
 Coats Viyella (India) Ltd 0,32%
 Media ponderada 0,94%
 ---pagebreak--- (ii) Empresas que solicitaron una investigación individual
 Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. 0.80%
 Soundararaja Mills Ltd. 0,26%
 Deepak Spinners Ltd. 0,00%
 Puesto que todos los márgenes de dumping establecidos eran inferiores al 2%, deben
 considerarse mínimos.
 E. MODIFICACIÓN DE LAS MEDIDAS OBJETO DE RECONSIDERACIÓN
 (22) Se concluye, por tanto, que, puesto que los márgenes de dumping comprobados son
 mínimos, es necesario modificar el Reglamento (CEE) N° 830/92 y dejar de aplicar los
 derechos establecidos sobre las importaciones del producto procedentes de la India.
 (23 ) Los exportadores de la India y los denunciantes han sido informados de estas conclusiones.
 (24) Puesto que la reconsideración se limita a los productores de la India, no afecta a la fecha
 en que caducarán los derechos establecidos para otros países por el Reglamento (CEE) n°
 830/92 de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el apartado 1 del artículo 15 del Reglamento
 de base,
 ---pagebreak--- HA ADOPTADO EL PRESENTE REGLAMENTO:
 Artículo 1
 El artículo 1 del Reglamento (CEE) n° 830/92 quedará modificado como sigue:
 1. En el apartado 1 se suprimirá la palabra "India".
 2. En el aparatado 2, se suprimirán la línea que comienza por "India" y la lista de empresas
 encabezada por la palabra "India".
 Artículo 2
 El presente Reglamento entrará en vigor el día siguiente al de su publicación en el Diario Oficial
 de las Comunidades Europeas.
 El presente Reglamento será obligatorio en todos sus elementos y directamente aplicable en cada
 Estado miembro.
 Hecho en Bruselas, Por el Consejo
 El Presidente
 ---pagebreak--- ISSN 0257-9545
 COM(94) 454 final
 DOCUMENTOS
 ES 11 02
 N° de catálogo : CB-CO-94-475-ES-C
 ISBN 92-77-81269-9
 Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas
 L-2985 Luxemburgo


text:
 9.11.2013
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 325/20
 Решение на Общия съд от 16 септември 2013 г. — British Telecommunications и BT Pension Scheme Trustees/Комисия
 (Съединени дела T-226/09 и Т-230/09) (1)
 (Държавни помощи - Частично освобождаване от задължението за заплащане на такса към Фонда за пенсионна закрила - Решение, с което помощта се обявява за несъвместима с вътрешния пазар - Понятие за държавна помощ - Държавни ресурси - Предимство - Селективност - Нарушаване на конкуренцията - Засягане на търговията между държавите членки - Равно третиране - Пропорционалност - Оправдани правни очаквания - Задължение за мотивиране - Прилагане на помощта)
 2013/C 325/33
 Език на производството: английски
 Страни
 Жалбоподатели: British Telecommunications (Лондон, Обединено кралство) (представители: G. Robert, M. Newhouse, T. Castorina, solicitors, J. Holmes, barrister, и H. Legge, QC) (дело T-226/09); и BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd (Лондон) (представители: J. Derenne и A. Müller-Rappard, avocats) (дело T-230/09)
 Ответник: Европейска комисия (представители: L. Flynn и N. Khan)
 Предмет
 Искане за отмяна на Решение 2009/703/ЕО на Комисията от 11 февруари 2009 година относно държавна помощ C 55/07 (ex NN 63/07, CP 106/06), прилагана от Обединеното кралство Великобритания и Северна Ирландия — държавна гаранция за B[ritish] T[elecommunications] (ОВ L 242, стр. 21).
 Диспозитив
 1.
 Отхвърля жалбите.
 2.
 Осъжда British Telecommunications plc да заплати съдебните разноски по дело T-226/09.
 3.
 Осъжда BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd да заплати съдебните разноски по дело T-230/09.
 (1) ОВ C 193, 15.8.2009 г.


type: contracts

text:
 31.10.2013
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 291/6
 DECISÃO DO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE
 N.o 55/2013
 de 3 de maio de 2013
 que altera o anexo I (Questões veterinárias e fitossanitárias) e o anexo II (Regulamentação técnica, normas, ensaios e certificação) do Acordo EEE
 O COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado por «Acordo EEE», nomeadamente o artigo 98.o,
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 O Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 da Comissão, de 2 de setembro de 2011, que retifica o Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2011 que altera o anexo VII do Regulamento (CE) n.o 882/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho e os Regulamentos (CE) n.o 180/2008 e (CE) n.o 737/2008 da Comissão no que diz respeito às listas e aos nomes dos laboratórios de referência da UE (1), deve ser incorporado no Acordo EEE
 (2)
 A presente decisão refere-se a legislação relativa a animais vivos, que não os peixes e os animais da aquicultura. A legislação relativa a estas matérias não é aplicável à Islândia, conforme especificado no ponto 2 da parte introdutória do capítulo I do anexo I do Acordo EEE. A parte da presente decisão que se refere ao capítulo I do anexo I não é, por conseguinte, aplicável à Islândia.
 (3)
 A presente decisão refere-se a legislação relativa a questões veterinárias. A legislação relativa a questões veterinárias não é aplicável ao Liechtenstein enquanto a aplicação do Acordo entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Confederação Suíça relativo ao comércio de produtos agrícolas for extensiva ao Liechtenstein, tal como especificado nas adaptações setoriais do anexo I do Acordo EEE. Por conseguinte, a presente decisão não é aplicável ao Liechtenstein.
 (4)
 Os anexos I e II do Acordo EEE devem, por conseguinte, ser alterados em conformidade,
 ADOTOU A PRESENTE DECISÃO:
 Artigo 1.o
 O anexo I do Acordo EEE é alterado do seguinte modo:
 1)
 Na parte 1.1 do capítulo I, ao sexto travessão [Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2011 da Comissão] do ponto 11 [Regulamento (CE) n.o 882/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho] é aditado o seguinte:
 «, tal como alterado por:
 —
 32011 R 0880: Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 da Comissão, de 2 de setembro de 2011 (JO L 228 de 3.9.2011, p. 8).».
 2)
 Na parte 3.2 do capítulo I, ao primeiro travessão [Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2011 da Comissão] do ponto 41 [Regulamento (CE) n.o 737/2008 da Comissão] é aditado o seguinte:
 «, tal como alterado por:
 —
 32011 R 0880: Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 da Comissão, de 2 de setembro de 2011 (JO L 228 de 3.9.2011, p. 8).».
 3)
 Na parte 4.2 do capítulo I, ao primeiro travessão [Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2011 da Comissão] do ponto 90 [Regulamento (CE) n.o 180/2008 da Comissão] é aditado o seguinte:
 «, tal como alterado por:
 —
 32011 R 0880: Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 da Comissão, de 2 de setembro de 2011 (JO L 228 de 3.9.2011, p. 8).».
 4)
 No capítulo II, ao quarto travessão [Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2011 da Comissão] do ponto 31j [Regulamento (CE) n.o 882/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho] é aditado o seguinte:
 «, tal como alterado por:
 —
 32011 R 0880: Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 da Comissão, de 2 de setembro de 2011 (JO L 228 de 3.9.2011, p. 8).».
 Artigo 2.o
 No capítulo XII do anexo II do Acordo, ao quarto travessão [Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2011 da Comissão] do ponto 54zzzi [Regulamento (CE) n.o 882/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho] é aditado o seguinte:
 «, tal como alterado por:
 —
 32011 R 0880: Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 da Comissão, de 2 de setembro de 2011 (JO L 228 de 3.9.2011, p. 8).».
 Artigo 3.o
 Fazem fé os textos do Regulamento (UE) n.o 880/2011 nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Artigo 4.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor em 4 de maio de 2013, desde que tenham sido efetuadas ao Comité Misto do EEE todas as notificações previstas no artigo 103.o, n.o 1, do Acordo EEE (2).
 Artigo 5.o
 A presente decisão é publicada na Secção EEE e no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 3 de maio de 2013.
 Pelo Comité Misto do EEE
 O Presidente
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 228 de 3.9.2011, p. 8.
 (2) Não foram indicados requisitos constitucionais.


text:
 24.1.2009
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 19/26
 Az Elsőfokú Bíróság 2008. december 2-i ítélete – Ford Motor kontra OHIM (FUN)
 (T-67/07. sz. ügy) (1)
 („Közösségi védjegy - A FUN közösségi szóvédjegy bejelentése - Feltétlen kizáró okok - Leíró jelleg hiánya - A 40/94/EK rendelet 7. cikke (1) bekezdésének b) és c) pontja’)
 (2009/C 19/49)
 Az eljárás nyelve: német
 Felek
 Felperes: Ford Motor (Dearborn, Michigan, Amerikai Egyesült Államok) (képviselő: R. Ingerl ügyvéd)
 Alperes: Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) (OHIM) (képviselő: A. Poch meghatalmazott)
 Az ügy tárgya
 A Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (OHIM) második fellebbezési tanácsának 2006. december 20-i, a FUN szóvédjegy közösségi védjegyként történő lajstromozása iránti kérelem tárgyában hozott határozata (R 1135/2006-2. sz. ügy) ellen benyújtott kereset.
 Az ítélet rendelkező része
 1)
 Az Elsőfokú Bíróság hatályon kívül helyezi a Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) (OHIM) második fellebbezési tanácsának 2006. december 20-i határozatát (R 1135/2006-2. sz. ügy).
 2)
 Az Elsőfokú Bíróság az OHIM-ot kötelezi a költségek viselésére.
 (1) HL C 95., 2007.4.28.


type: other

text:
Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea, C 231, 17 ta' Lulju 2017
 Volum 6017 ta' Lulju 2017
 Kawża C-10/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fil-11 ta’ Jannar 2017 minn Polo Club mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (Id-Disa’ Awla) fl-10 ta’ Novembru 2016 fil-Kawża T-67/15 – Polo Club vs L-Uffiċċju tal-Proprjetà Intellettwali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 Kawża C-50/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fil-31 ta’ Jannar 2017 minn Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, S.A. mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (It-Tmien Awla) fl-1 ta’ Diċembru 2017 fil-Kawża T-561/15 – Universidad Internacional de la Rioja vs L-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern (Trade marks u Disinni)
 Kawża C-147/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Curtea de Apel Constanta (ir-Rumanija) fit-23 ta’ Marzu 2017 – Sindicatul Familia Constanța et vs Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța
 Kawża C-148/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Bundesgerichtshof (il-Ġermanja) fl-24 ta’ Marzu 2017 – Peek & Cloppenburg KG vs Peek & Cloppenburg KG
 Kawża C-161/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Bundesgerichtshof (il-Ġermanja) fil-31 ta’ Marzu 2017 – Land Nordrhein-Westfalen vs Dirk Renckhoff
 Kawża C-171/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-5 ta’ April 2017 – Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea vs L-Ungerija
 Kawża C-192/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Consiglio di Stato (l-Italja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Cobra SpA vs Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
 Kawża C-196/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Kathrin Meyer vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-197/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Thomas Neufeldt et vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-198/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Ivan Wallmann vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-200/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Susanne de Winder vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-201/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Holger Schlosser u Nicole Schlosser vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-202/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-13 ta’ April 2017 – Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-208/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fil-21 ta’ April minn NF mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (L-Ewwel Awla Estiża) fit-28 ta’ Frar 2017 fil-Kawża T-192/16, NF vs Il-Kunsill Ewropew
 Kawża C-209/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fil-21 ta’ April 2017 minn NG mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (L-Ewwel Awla Estiża) fit-28 ta’ Frar 2017 fil-Kawża T-193/16, NG vs Il-Kunsill Ewropew
 Kawża C-210/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fil-21 ta’ April 2017 minn NM mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (L-Ewwel Awla Estiża) fit-28 ta’ Frar 2017 fil-Kawża T-257/16, NM vs Il-Kunsill Ewropew
 Kawża C-212/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mit-Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spanja) fl-24 ta’ April 2017 – Simón Rodríguez Otero vs Televisión de Galicia S.A.
 Kawża C-225/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fis-27 ta’ April 2017 minn Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (L-Ewwel Awla) fis-17 ta’ Frar 2017 fil-Kawżi magħquda T-14/14 u T-87/14, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines et vs Il-Kunsill tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 Kawża C-226/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-28 ta’ April 2017 – Brigitte Wittmann vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-228/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Amtsgericht Hannover (il-Ġermanja) fit-28 ta’ April 2017 – Reinhard Wittmann vs TUIfly GmbH
 Kawża C-238/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (il-Litwanja) fid-9 ta’ Mejju 2017 – “Renerga” UAB vs “Energijos skirstymo operatorius” AB, “Lietuvos energijos gamyba” AB
 Kawża C-246/17: Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Conseil d’État (il-Belġju) fl-10 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Ibrahima Diallo vs État belge
 Kawża C-265/17 P: Appell ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 mill-Kummissjoni Ewropea mis-sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ġenerali (Ir-Raba’ Awla) fis-7 ta’ Marzu 2017 fil-Kawża T-194/13, United Parcel Service vs Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea
 Kawża T-637/15: Sentenza tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-31 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine vs EUIPO – Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE) (“Trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea — Proċedimenti ta’ oppożizzjoni — Applikazzjoni għat-trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea figurattiva SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE — Trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea verbali preċedenti VIÑA SOL — Raġuni relattiva għal rifjut — Ħsara għall-karattru distintiv — Assenza ta’ xebh tas-sinjali — Artikolu 8(5) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 207/2009”)
 Kawża T-519/16: Sentenza tal-Qorti Ġenerali tas-17 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Piessevaux vs Il-Kunsill (“Servizz Pubbliku — Uffiċjali — Pensjonijiet — Trasferiment tad-drittijiet għall-pensjoni lejn l-iskema tal-pensjonijiet tal-Unjoni — Proposta ta’ akkreditazzjoni tas-snin ta’ servizz — Artikolu 11(2) tal-Anness VIII tar-Regolamenti tal-Persunal — Dispożizzjonijiet ġenerali ta’ implementazzjoni ġodda — Ugwaljanza fit-trattament — Drittijiet miksuba — Aspettattivi leġittimi”)
 Kawża T-164/16: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tas-17 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Piper Verlag vs EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES) (“Trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea — Applikazzjoni għat-trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea figurattiva THE TRAVEL EPISODES — Raġuni assoluta għal rifjut — Talba għal bidla — Att li ma jistax jiġi adottat mill-Bord tal-Appell — Ksur tar-rekwiżiti proċedurali — Inammissibbiltà”)
 Kawża T-207/16 R: Digriet tal-President tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-8 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis vs Il-Kummissjoni (“Proċeduri għal miżuri provviżorji — Kuntratti pubbliċi — Avviż ta’ esklużjoni — Avviż ta’ verifika — Talba għas-sospensjoni tal-eżekuzzjoni — Nuqqas ta’ urġenza”)
 Kawża T-285/16: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tal-15 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Dominator International vs EUIPO (DREAMLINE) [“Trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea — Reġistrazzjoni internazzjonali li tindika l-Unjoni Ewropea — Trade mark verbali DREAMLINE — Raġunijiet assoluti għal rifjut — Assenza ta’ karattru distintiv — Artikolu 7(1)(b) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 207/2009 — Karattru deskrittiv — Artikolu 7(1)(c) tar-Regolament Nru 207/2009 — Artikolu 7(2) tar-Regolament Nru 207/2009 — Rikors parzjalment inammissibbli u parzjalment manifestament infondat fid-dritt — Artikolu 126 tar-Regoli tal-Proċedura”]
 Kawża T-481/16 RENV: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tas-17 ta’ Ġunju 2017 – Cuallado Martorell vs Il-Kummissjoni (“Servizz pubbliku — Reklutaġġ — Kompetizzjoni ġenerali — Nuqqas ta’ ammissjoni għall-eżami orali — Evalwazzjoni tal-eżami bil-miktub — Deċiżjoni li isem ir-rikorrent ma jitniżżilx fil-lista ta’ riżerva — Possibbiltà għal Bord tal-Għażla li jafda l-korrezzjoni tal-eżamijiet bil-miktub lil wieħed mill-membri tiegħu — Rikors parzjalment manifestament inammissibbli u parzjalment manifestament infondat fid-dritt”)
 Kawża T-785/16: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tas-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 – BSH Electrodomesticos España vs EUIPO – DKSH International (Ufesa) (“Trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea — Proċedimenti ta’ oppożizzjoni — Applikazzjoni għat-trade mark verbali tal-Unjoni Ewropea Ufesa — Ftehim bonarju — Kisba mir-rikorrenti tat-trade mark mitluba — Ma hemmx lok li tingħata deċiżjoni”)
 Kawża T-170/17 R: Digriet tal-President tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – RW vs Il-Kummissjoni (“Proċeduri għal miżuri provviżorji — Servizz pubbliku — Uffiċjali — Ħruġ fuq leave u irtirar mhux volontarji — Eta tal-irtirar — Artikolu 42ċ tar-Regolamenti tal-Persunal — Talba għas-sospensjoni tal-eżekuzzjoni — Fumus boni juris — Urġenza — Ibbilanċjar tal-interessi”)
 Kawża T-113/17: Rikors ippreżentat fl-20 ta’ Frar 2017 – Crédit Agricole u Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-242/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-25 ta’ April 2017 – SC vs Eulex Kosovo
 Kawża T-244/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-26 ta’ April 2017 – António Conde & Companhia vs Il-Kumissjoni
 Kawża T-254/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-28 ta’ April 2017 – Intermarché Casino Achats vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-255/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-28 ta’ April 2017 – Les Mousquetaires u ITM Entreprises vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-267/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-8 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking vs Revoind Industriale
 Kawża T-269/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-8 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking vs Revoind Industriale
 Kawża T-270/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-8 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking vs Revoind Industriale
 Kawża T-271/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-8 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking vs Revoind Industriale
 Kawża T-272/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-5 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Webgarden vs EUIPO (Dating Bracelet)
 Kawża T-283/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-15 ta’ Mejju 2017 – SH vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-284/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-12 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Le Pen vs Il-Parlament
 Kawża T-285/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-12 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Yanukovych vs Il-Kunsill
 Kawża T-286/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-12 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Yanukovych vs Il-Kunsill
 Kawża T-288/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-15 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Sky vs EUIPO – Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)
 Kawża T-290/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Stavytskyi vs Il-Kunsill
 Kawża T-291/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Transdev et vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-292/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Région Île-de-France vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-294/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-12 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Lion’s Head Global Partners vs EUIPO – Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)
 Kawża T-297/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-15 ta’ Mejju 2017 – VSM vs EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)
 Kawża T-299/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Sata vs EUIPO – Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)
 Kawża T-300/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-17 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Sata vs EUIPO – Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)
 Kawża T-302/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Sata vs EUIPO – Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (6000)
 Kawża T-303/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Sata vs EUIPO – Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)
 Kawża T-304/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Sata vs EUIPO – Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)
 Kawża T-305/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-17 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Red Bull vs EUIPO (Rappreżentazzjoni ta’ parallelogramm komposta minn żewġ għelieqi b’kuluri differenti)
 Kawża T-307/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – adidas v EUIPO – Shoe Branding Europe (Rappreżentazzjoni ta’ tliet strixxi paralleli)
 Kawża T-310/17: Rikors ippreżentat fil-15 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Lion’s Head Global Partners vs EUIPO – Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners)
 Kawża T-311/17: Rikors ippreżentat fid-19 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Stips vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-313/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-22 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Wajos vs EUIPO (Forma ta’ flixkun)
 Kawża T-314/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-23 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Nosio vs EUIPO (MEZZA)
 Kawża T-318/17: Rikors ippreżentat fid-19 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Clean Sky 2 joint Undertaking vs Revoind Industriale
 Kawża T-330/17: Rikors ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Coebus et vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-331/17: Rikors ippreżentat fit-23 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Steifer vs KESE
 Kawża T-757/15: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-3 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Facebok vs EUIPO
 Kawża T-84/17: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Consorzio IB Innovation vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Kawża T-126/17: Digriet tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-18 ta’ Mejju 2017 – Consorzio IB Innovation vs Il-Kummissjoni
 Rettifika tal-avviż fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali fil-Kawża T-86/17 ( ĠU C 104, 3.4.2017 )
 Rettifika għall-avviż fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali fil-Kawża T-161/17 ( ĠU C 151, 15.5.2017 )


text:
 14.4.2012
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 109/9
 Arrest van het Gerecht van 28 februari 2012 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung/Commissie
 (Zaak T-282/08) (1)
 (Staatssteun - Steun die door Oostenrijkse autoriteiten aan groep Grazer Wechselseitige (GRAWE) is toegekend in kader van privatisering van Bank Burgenland - Beschikking waarbij steun met gemeenschappelijke markt onverenigbaar wordt verklaard en terugvordering ervan wordt gelast - Criterium van particuliere investeerder in markteconomie - Toepassing in geval waarin staat als verkoper optreedt - Bepaling van marktprijs)
 2012/C 109/20
 Procestaal: Duits
 Partijen
 Verzoekende partij: Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (Graz, Oostenrijk) (vertegenwoordiger: H. Wollmann, advocaat)
 Verwerende partij: Europese Commissie (vertegenwoordigers: aanvankelijk V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan en K. Gross, vervolgens V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan en T. Maxian Rusche, gemachtigden)
 Voorwerp
 Verzoek tot nietigverklaring van beschikking C(2008) 1625 definitief van de Commissie van 30 april 2008 inzake steunmaatregel C 56/2006 (ex NN 77/2006) die door Oostenrijk is vastgesteld in het kader van de privatisering van de Bank Burgenland (PB L 239, blz. 32)
 Dictum
 1)
 Het beroep wordt verworpen.
 2)
 Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG wordt verwezen in de kosten.
 (1) PB C 247 van 27.9.2008.


text:
ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
 DE LA COMMISSION
 COLLECTION RELIEE DES
 DOCUMENTS "COM"
 COM (88) 100
 Vol. 1988/0029
 ---pagebreak--- Disclaimer
 Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 concernant
 l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique européenne et de
 la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifié en dernier
 lieu par le règlement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25. 3.2015, p. 1), ce
 dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents classifiés présents dans ce dossier
 ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit règlement ou sont considérés déclassifiés
 conformément aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la décision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
 Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les règles de sécurité aux fins de la protection des
 informations classifiées de l'Union européenne.
 In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning
 the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the
 European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as last amended by Council
 Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1), this file is open to the
 public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity
 with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with
 Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
 In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar
 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
 der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1), zuletzt geändert durch die
 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. März 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1), ist dieser Akt
 der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
 Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
 sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
 2015/444 vom 13. März 2015 über die Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von EU-
 Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.
 ---pagebreak--- ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΩΝ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ
 ΔΙΟΡΘΩΤΙΚΟ
 CΟΜ(88 ) 100 τελικό / 2
 Βρυξέλλες , 18 Απριλίου 1988
 Πρόταση
 ΚΑΝΟΝΙΣΜΟΥ ( ΕΟΚ ) ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ
 σχετικά με την εισαγωγή πίτουρων εν γένει και άλλων υπολειμμάτων του κοσκινίσματος ,
 του αλέσματος ή άλλων κατεργασιών των σπόρων των σιτηρών εκτός από σπόρους
 καλαμποκιού και ρυζιού , και την τροποποίηση του κανονισμού ( ΕΟΚ ) αριθ .
 2658 / 87 για τη δασμολογική και στατιστική ονοματολογία
 και το κοινό δασμολόγιο
 ••■/•••
 ---pagebreak--- CETTE PAGE ANNULE ET REMPLACE CELLE CORRESPONDANTE DU DOCUMENT C0M(88 ) 100 final
 ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ
 Κωδικός ΣΟ ' ΠΕΡΙΓΡΑΦΗ ΕΜΠΟΡΕΥΜΑΤΩΝ ΔΑΣΜΟΙ
 αυτόνομοι συμβατικοί συμπλιγ
 (%) (X) pipen , Γ,
 ή εισφορές μονάδα
 ( AGR )
 1 2 3 4 5
 2302 I Πίτουρα εν γένει και άλλα υπολείμματα, έστω και συσσωματωμένα με |
 : μορφή σβόλων, από το κοσκίνισμα, το άλεσμα ή άλλες κατεργασίες των !
 | δημητριακών ή οσπριοειδών : I
 2302 30 - Σιταριού :
 2302 30 10 - - Των οποίων η περιεκτικότητα σε άμυλο
 είναι κατώτερη ή ίση του 28Χ κατά βάρος
 και των οποίων η αναλογία του προϊόντος
 που περνά μέσα από κόσκινο με άνοιγμα
 βρόχων 0,2 ΜΜ , δεν υπερβαίνει το 10%
 κατά βάρος , ή σε αντίθετη περίπτωση , τω >
 οποίων το 'προϊόν που έχει περάσει μέσα
 από το κόσκινο έχει περιεκτικότητα σε
 τέφρες , που υπολογίζεται σε ξερή ύλη ,
 ίση ή ανώτερη του 1,5% κατά βάρος 21 ( AGR ) (1 )
 2302 30 90 - - - Αλλα 21 ( AGR ) (1 )
 %
 2302 40 - Άλλων δημητριακών :
 2302 40 10 - - Των οποίων η περιεκτικότητα σε άμυλο εί-
 ναι κατώτερη ή ίση του 28% κατά βάρος
 και των οποίων η αναλογία του προϊόντος
 που περνά μέσα από κόσκινο με άνοιγμα
 βρόχων 0,2 ΜΜ δεν υπερβαίνει το 10% κα-
 τά βάρος ή , σε αντίθετη περίπτωση , των
 ♦ οποίων το προϊόν που έχει περάσει μέσα
 από το κόσκινο έχει περιεκτικότητα σε
 τέφρες , που υπολογίζεται σε ξερή ύλη ,
 ίση ή ανώτερη του 1,5% κατά βάρος 21 ( AGR ) (1 )
 2302 40 90 - - Άλλα 21 ( AGR ) (1)
 ----- 1
 Μειωμένη εισφορά εφαρμόζεται εντός των ορίων ετήσιας ποσοστώσεως 550.000 τόνων ,
 της οποίας οι όροι χορηγήσεως ρυθμίζονται από κατάλληλες κοινοτικές διατάζεις .


text:
16.11.2017
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 300/27
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 83/2016
 2016 m. balandžio 29 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas EEE susitarimo II priedas (Techniniai reglamentai, standartai, tyrimai ir sertifikavimas) [2017/2033]
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2016 m. vasario 16 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) 2016/217, kuriuo dėl kadmio iš dalies keičiamas Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1907/2006 dėl cheminių medžiagų registracijos, įvertinimo, autorizacijos ir apribojimų (REACH) XVII priedas (1);
 (2)
 todėl EEE susitarimo II priedas turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo II priedo XV skyriaus 12zc punktas (Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1907/2006) papildomas šia įtrauka:
 „—
 32016 R 0217: 2016 m. vasario 16 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) 2016/217 (OL L 40, 2016 2 17, p. 5).“
 2 straipsnis
 Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede skelbtinas Reglamento (ES) 2016/217 tekstas islandų ir norvegų kalbomis yra autentiškas.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2016 m. balandžio 30 d., jei buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal EEE susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (*1).
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE skyriuje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2016 m. balandžio 29 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) OL L 40, 2016 2 17, p. 5.
 (*1) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.