do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2010 of 18 March 2010 granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, butter, export refund








L_2010069EN.01000701.xml










19.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 69/7








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 231/2010
of 18 March 2010
         
granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 16 March 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 16 March 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 229/2010 of 18 March 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ricciarelli di Siena (PGI))
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, biscuit factory, confectionery product, designation of origin, location of production, pastry-making, product designation








L_2010069EN.01000301.xml










19.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 69/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 229/2010
of 18 March 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ricciarelli di Siena (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Ricciarelli di Siena’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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, 18 March 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 186, 8.8.2009, p. 20.




ANNEX
Foodstuffs referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 2.4.   Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares

ITALY
Ricciarelli di Siena (PGI)
Case C-218/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Export refunds — Article 5(3) — Conditions for granting — Exception — Force majeure — Products which perished in transit)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, beef, carriage of goods, export refund, interpretation of the law, packaging, preparation for market








C_2010134EN.01000802.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/8





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
(Case C-218/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Article 5(3) - Conditions for granting - Exception - Force majeure - Products which perished in transit)
2010/C 134/13
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

Defendants: Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) — Conditions for granting export refunds — Exception — Product which has perished in transit for reasons of force majeure.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 of 19 June 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that damage to a consignment of beef in the conditions described by the national court does not constitute force majeure within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.
Case C-419/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes — Non-contractual liability — Damage — Causal link)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, European Community, General Court (EU), appeal, contractual liability, financial transaction, interpretation of the law








C_2010134EN.01000601.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-419/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes - Non-contractual liability - Damage - Causal link)
2010/C 134/08
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Trubowest Handel GmbH (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, dikigoroi), Viktor Makarov (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 9 July 2008 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-429/04 Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission, by which it dismissed an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Makarov to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5820 — HPS/DKPS/SC) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, chemical product, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial management, merger control, technology, water








C_2010067EN.01002401.xml










18.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5820 — HPS/DKPS/SC)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 67/08






1.


On 9 March 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which Haselsteiner Familien-Privatstiftung, (‘HPS’, Austria) and Krassny-Privatstiftung (‘DKPS’, Austria) are to acquire joint control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation over Semper Constantia Privatbank Aktiengesellschaft (‘SC’, Austria) by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


HPS: Construction industry,










—


DKPS: Chemical production and hydrotechnics,










—


SC: Fund and asset management for private clients.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5820 — HPS/DKPS/SC, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case T-123/10: Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01004501.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/45





Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete)
(Case T-123/10)
2010/C 134/73
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2010 in Case R 601/2009-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Complete’ for goods in classes 5 and 10 (Application No 7 432 024)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the sign applied for in respect of the goods in question is not directly descriptive and, further, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that this sign does not lack the requisite distinctive character.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-440/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — F. Gielen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Direct taxation — Article 43 EC — Non-resident taxable person — Business operator — Right to a self-employed person’s deduction — Hours test — Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxable persons — Option to be treated as a resident taxable person)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, Netherlands, anti-discriminatory measure, fiscal court, interpretation of the law, taxpayer








C_2010134EN.01000602.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — F. Gielen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-440/08) (1)

(Direct taxation - Article 43 EC - Non-resident taxable person - Business operator - Right to a self-employed person’s deduction - Hours test - Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxable persons - Option to be treated as a resident taxable person)
2010/C 134/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: F. Gielen

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 43 EC — National legislation granting self-employed business operators the right to deduct a flat-rate amount from their profits provided that they have devoted at least 1 225 hours per calendar year to the activities of the business — No account taken, solely in the case of a non-resident taxpayer, of hours devoted to an undertaking established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU precludes national legislation which, in relation to the granting of a tax advantage, such as the self-employed person’s deduction at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory towards non-resident taxable persons, even though those taxable persons may opt for the regime applicable to resident taxable persons in order to benefit from that tax advantage.


(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, Norway, State aid, control of State aid








C_2010067EN.01001101.xml










18.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/11





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
2010/C 67/06
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


18 November 2009




Case number


:


63204




EFTA State


:


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Alleged State aid being granted to Westfal-Larsen Gruppen/Scandinavian Electric AS




Type of measure


:


No aid




Name and address of the granting authority


:







The municipality of Bergen




Postboks 7700




5020 Bergen




NORWAY








Other information


:


—




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Commission Regulation (EU) No 232/2010 of 18 March 2010 granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, skimmed milk powder








L_2010069EN.01000801.xml










19.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 69/8








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 232/2010
of 18 March 2010
         
granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 16 March 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 16 March 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Case C-144/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2010 — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2010148EN.01001701.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2010 — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch
(Case C-144/10)
2010/C 148/26
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch

Questions referred







1.


Does the scope of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) also extend to proceedings in which a company or legal person objects, with regard to a claim made against it stemming from a legal transaction, that decisions of its organs which led to the conclusion of the legal transaction are ineffective as a result of infringements of its articles of association?










2.


If the question under (1) is answered in the affirmative, is Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 also applicable to legal persons governed by public law in so far as the effectiveness of the decisions of its organs are subject to review by civil courts?










3.


If the question under (2) is answered in the affirmative, is the court of the Member State last seised in legal proceedings required to stay the proceedings pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 even if it is claimed that, as a result of a decision of the organs of one of the parties which is ineffective under its articles of association, an agreement conferring jurisdiction is likewise ineffective?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Case T-350/08: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Papierfabrik Hamburger-Spremberg v Commission
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, infringement of EU law, ordinance, pulp and paper industry, regional aid








C_2010134EN.01005003.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/50





Order of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Papierfabrik Hamburger-Spremberg v Commission
(Case T-350/08) (1)

2010/C 134/82

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.