do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 121/2009 of 9 February 2009 fixing the additional amount to be paid in Bulgaria for peaches for processing under the 2007/08 marketing year in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 679/2007
Date: 2009-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fishery management, food aid, food processing, marketing, sea fish

10.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/33

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 121/2009

of 9 February 2009

fixing the additional amount to be paid in Bulgaria for peaches for processing under the 2007/08
marketing year in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 679/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and
Romania,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 679/2007 of
18 June 2007 fixing the aid for peaches for processing for the
2007/2008 marketing year (1), and in particular Article 2(1)
thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

In accordance with Article 39(2) of Commission Regu­
lation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying
down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation
(EC) No 2201/96 as
for
regards
vegetables (2),
from fruit
products
Bulgaria has notified the Commission that processing
aid was granted in respect of 119,46 tonnes of peaches

the aid scheme

processed

and

under this arrangement for the 2007/2008 marketing
year. The processing threshold given for that Member
to Council Regulation (EC) No
State in Annex III
2201/96 (3) was not therefore exceeded. An additional
amount of EUR 11,92 per tonne must
therefore be
paid in respect of the quantities concerned.

(2)

For
in
the 2007/2008 marketing year, producers
Romania submitted no applications for aid for peaches
for processing. No additional amount should therefore be
paid in that Member State for that marketing year,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

An additional amount of EUR 11,92 per tonne of peaches for
processing, as referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No
the 2007/2008
679/2007, shall be paid in Bulgaria after
marketing year.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following
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, 9 February 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL
Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 157, 19.6.2007, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 218, 30.8.2003, p. 14.

(3) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.
Case T-57/09: Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Alfastar Benelux v Conseil
Date: 2009-02-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009102EN.01001901.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/19





Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Alfastar Benelux v Conseil
(Case T-57/09)
2009/C 102/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alfastar Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul the Council’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for Tender UCA-218-07 for the provision of “Technical maintenance — help desk and on site intervention services for the PC’s, printers and peripherals of the general secretariat of the Council” (1) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 1 December 2008 and all further related decisions of the Council including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 937 902 or the proportion of the above amount according to the date of annulment of the above decision of the Council;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if current application is rejected.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender UCA-218-07 for the provision of “Technical maintenance — help desk and on site intervention services for the PC’s, printers and peripherals of the general secretariat of the Council” and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
First, it argues that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment concerning: the absence of certification of the winning tenderer, the absence of NATO security clearance of the personnel of the winning tenderer, the fact that the winning tenderer did not dispose of the personnel offered, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks and the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.
Second, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to observe its obligations for equal treatment of the candidates and transparency.
Third, it submits that the call for tender included numerous inconsistencies and inaccurate information.
Last, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed its obligation to motivate its acts.


(1)  OJ 2008/S 91-122796
Commission Regulation (EC) No 117/2009 of 9 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

L 39/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.2.2009

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 117/2009

of 9 February 2009

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Whereas:

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of
22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agri­
cultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agri­
cultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,
the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values
for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and
periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007
of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for
Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and
(EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in
particular Article 138(1) thereof,

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regu­
lation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 February 2009.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
Director-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development

(1) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

10.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/9

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0709 90 80

0805 10 20

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 50 10

0808 10 80

0808 20 50

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

(EUR/100 kg)

IL
JO
MA
TN
TR
ZZ

JO
MA
TR
ZZ

MA
TR
ZZ

EG
ZZ

EG
IL
MA
TN
TR
ZA
ZZ

IL
MA
TR
ZZ

CN
IL
JM
MA
PK
TR
ZZ

EG
MA
TR
ZZ

AR
CA
CL
CN
MK
US
ZZ

AR
CL
CN
US
ZA
ZZ

111,0
68,6
45,0
134,4
89,8
89,8

155,5
134,2
151,1
146,9

116,3
117,2
116,8

126,4
126,4

47,5
54,0
59,3
40,6
65,8
44,9
52,0

152,1
100,5
52,0
101,5

72,2
87,2
101,6
158,6
40,0
62,7
87,1

64,1
67,1
53,5
61,6

91,9
90,4
67,8
82,1
32,6
114,6
79,9

107,7
73,7
58,5
108,5
104,3
90,5

(1) Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘ZZ’ stands

for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-55/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 9 February 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Baxi Group Limited
Date: 2009-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, United Kingdom, advertising, interpretation of the law, provision of services, sales promotion








C_2009090EN.01001401.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 9 February 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Baxi Group Limited
(Case C-55/09)
2009/C 90/21
Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Baxi Group Limited

Questions referred

‘In circumstances where






A.


a taxable person runs a business promotion scheme operated by an advertising and marketing company under which ‘points’ are issued to the taxable person's customers in connection with the purchase of goods by the customers from the taxable person;










B.


customers redeem the points by obtaining reward goods from the advertising and marketing company without payment;










C.


the taxable person has agreed with that other company to pay it the recommended retail price of the reward goods






1.


How are Articles 14, 24 and 73 and 168 of the VAT Directive (1) (formerly Articles 5, 6 and 11(A)(1)(a) and 17(2) of the Sixth Directive (2)) to be interpreted as regards the payments by the taxable person to the other company?










2.


In particular, are those provisions to be interpreted such that the payments by the taxable person to the other company are to be characterised:






(a)


solely as consideration for a supply of services by the other company to the taxable person;










(b)


solely as third party consideration for the supply of goods by the other company to the customers;










(c)


as consideration in part for the supply of services by the other company to the taxable person and in part for the supply of goods by the other company to the customers; or










(d)


as consideration for supplies both of advertising and marketing services and of reward goods by the other company to the taxable person?














3.


If the answer to question 2 is that such payments are to be characterised in part as consideration for a supply of services by the other company to the taxable person and in part as third party consideration from the taxable person to the other company in respect of the other company's supply of goods to the customers, what are the criteria laid down by Community law to determine how the payment is to be apportioned between those two supplies?










(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, p. 1’
Case C-56/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2009 — Emiliano Zanotti v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2009-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, equal treatment, fiscal court, interpretation of the law, regulation (EU)








C_2009090EN.01001501.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2009 — Emiliano Zanotti v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-56/09)
2009/C 90/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Emiliano Zanotti

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Do the general principles of the Treaty and of Community law regarding full and effective judicial protection, equal treatment and freedom of movement preclude the application of Article 15(e) of Decree No 917 of the President of the Republic of 22 December 1986 (Consolidated Text of the Laws on Income Tax) and of Point 1.5.1 of Circular No 95 of the Ministry of Finance of 12 May 2000 and does the limitation, pursuant to those provisions, of the recognition of the costs referred to therein conflict with Community law?
Case T-47/09: Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM
Date: 2009-02-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009102EN.01001802.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/18





Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM
(Case T-47/09)
2009/C 102/29
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch (Mainz, Germany) (represented by V. Töbelmann and A. Piltz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in Case R 1094/2008-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘diegesellschafter.de’ for services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 4 606 372)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) NO 40/94, (1) since the marks cited have the required distinctive character and there is no requirement to keep the mark free.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).