do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-44/06: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Hellenic Ventures and Others (Arbitration clause — Action for the creation and development of seed-capital funds — Termination of the contract — Action against the members of a company — Inadmissibility — Reimbursement of advances — Interest)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, appeal, early-stage capital, financial aid, financial control, investment, redemption, termination of a contract








C_2010221EN.01003401.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/34





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Hellenic Ventures and Others
(Case T-44/06) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Action for the creation and development of seed-capital funds - Termination of the contract - Action against the members of a company - Inadmissibility - Reimbursement of advances - Interest)
2010/C 221/53
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, and S. Khatzigiannis, lawyer)

Defendants: Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE (Athens, Greece); Konstantinos Katsigiannis (Athens); Panagiotis Khronopoulos (Athens); and Nikolaos Poulakos (Athens) (represented by: V. Khristianos and V. Vlassi, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 238 EC by which the Commission seeks an order that the defendants reimburse an advance paid under a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, concluded between the Commission and the defendant company

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 70 000, together with late-payment interest calculated at the Belgian statutory rate from 25 April 1999 until payment in full of the debt;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders Hellenic Ventures to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos.






(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
Case T-51/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Antiche Terre (Arbitration clause — Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) — Contract concerning the project for the building in Umbertide (Italy) of an electricity generating plant using an innovative agro-forestry biomass combustion technology — Substantial amendment to the conditions for performance of the contract — Termination — Reimbursement of sums paid — Interest)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment, biomass, electrical energy, energy production, farming sector








C_2010221EN.01004201.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/42





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Antiche Terre
(Case T-51/09) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) - Contract concerning the project for the building in Umbertide (Italy) of an electricity generating plant using an innovative agro-forestry biomass combustion technology - Substantial amendment to the conditions for performance of the contract - Termination - Reimbursement of sums paid - Interest)
2010/C 221/68
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V Joris, acting as Agent, and A. dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant: Antiche Terre Soc. Coop. rl Società Agricola Cooperativa (Arezzo, Italy) (represented by: L. Defalque and P. Van Leynseele, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order that Antiche Terre reimburse the sums paid by the Community in performance of contract no BM/188/96 of 23 December 1996, concluded with three companies, including Antiche Terre, under the Thermie programme

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Antiche Terre Soc. Coop. rl Società Agricola Cooperativa to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 479 332,40, together with late-payment interest at the Italian statutory rate, calculated in accordance with the rates applicable from 4 January 2004 until payment in full of the debt, after deduction of the sum of EUR 461 979 recovered by the Commission following the implementation on 25 January 2005 of the bank guarantee of which it was beneficiary;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders Antiche Terre to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Corrigendum to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae ( OJ L 224, 18.8.1990 )
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: animal disease, equidae, health certificate, health control, international trade, veterinary inspection








L_2010172EN.01000501.xml










7.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 172/5







Corrigendum to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae
(
Official Journal of the European Communities L 224 of 18 August 1990
)

On page 42, sixth recital:
for:


                     ‘Whereas the conditions for the movement on national territory of equidae bearing an identification document should also be regulated;’,

read:


                     ‘Whereas the conditions for the movements on national territory of registered equidae bearing an identification document should also be regulated;’;

On page 43, first paragraph of Article 3:
for:

               ‘Member States shall authorize the movement of equidae registered in their territory …’,
read:

               ‘Member States shall authorise the movement of registered equidae in their territory …’;
On page 44, fourth indent of Article 4(5)(a):
for:






‘—


six months in the case of vesicular stomatitis,’,




read:






‘—


six months from the last recorded case, in the case of vesicular stomatitis,’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5878 — CVC/Caixanova/R Cable)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2010182EN.01000201.xml










7.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5878 — CVC/Caixanova/R Cable)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 182/02
On 28 May 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5878. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-381/09: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate (Article 104(3), paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — VAT exemptions — Article 13B(d)(1) — Grant, negotiation and management of credit — Exorbitant lending activities — Activity unlawful under national law)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, credit, interpretation of the law, loan, tax exemption, tax system








C_2010288EN.01001602.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/16






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-381/09) (1)

(Article 104(3), paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Scope - VAT exemptions - Article 13B(d)(1) - Grant, negotiation and management of credit - Exorbitant lending activities - Activity unlawful under national law)
(2010/C 288/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gennaro Curia

Defendant: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Transactions consisting in the grant, negotiation and management of credit — Exorbitant lending activities, unlawful activity according to national law

Operative part

Although exorbitant lending is a criminal offence under the national criminal code it falls, despite the fact that it is unlawful, within the scope of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment. Article 13B(d)(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot impose value added tax on that activity when the corresponding lawful activity of money lending at rates of interest that are not excessive is exempt from VAT.


(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2010 — Tomas v European Parliament (Civil service — Members of temporary staff — Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities — Termination of employment — Relationship of trust — Prior consultation of the Parliament’s Staff Committee — None)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action by staff, action for annulment, dismissal








C_2010274EN.01003102.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/31





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2010 — Tomas v European Parliament
(Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08) (1)

(Civil service - Members of temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities - Termination of employment - Relationship of trust - Prior consultation of the Parliament’s Staff Committee - None)
2010/C 274/47
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Michalauskas. lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, the annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss that applicant and, second, an application for damages for the non-material and material loss suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses applications F-116/07 and F_13/08;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Stanislovas Tomas the sum of EUR 1 000, for the non-material damage he has suffered;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the application in F-31/08;










4.


Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to all of the actions F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08.






(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 65, OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 39, and OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26
Case C-342/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, supplementary pension








C_2010234EN.01002802.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/28





Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
(Case C-342/10)
()
2010/C 234/46
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by I. Koskinen and R. Lyal)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement;










—


order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Finland taxes foreign pension funds on the dividends received by them more heavily than Finnish pension funds. Finnish pension funds are taxed under a special tax scheme (Elinkeinoverolaki) and their tax rate is determined differently from that of other corporations. Under Paragraph 6a of the Elinkeinoverolaki, only 75 % of their dividend income is taxable income, and since the corporation tax rate is 26 % their real tax rate is 19,5 %. Finnish pension institutions can also deduct, under Paragraph 7 and point 10 of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 8 of the Elinkeinoverolaki, expenses and losses deriving from the acquisition or preservation of income, and also pension liabilities. Dividends received by comparable foreign pension funds are charged withholding tax at a tax rate of as much as 28 %. As regards pension funds established in the Member States and most pension funds from EFTA countries belonging to the EEA, the dividends are taxed in accordance with a tax rate of 19,5 %, but foreign pension funds are not entitled to make the corresponding deductions.
The tax rate applicable to dividends paid to recipients abroad under the Finnish tax scheme, together with the broader basis of assessment applicable to them, acts to the disadvantage of foreign pension funds offering their services to Finnish customers by placing them in an unfavourable competitive situation. The discriminatory treatment of foreign pension funds makes it less profitable and attractive for those funds to invest in Finnish companies and affects the opportunities of Finnish companies to acquire capital finance from foreign pension funds. There is therefore a prohibited restriction for the purposes of Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement. The discriminatory treatment of foreign pension funds cannot be justified on any of the grounds put forward by the Republic of Finland.
Case C-338/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2010 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, anti-dumping legislation, economic value, import, interpretation of the law








C_2010260EN.01000502.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2010 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
(Case C-338/10)
()
2010/C 260/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is an anti-dumping regulation adopted by the European Commission in proceedings under Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) invalid because the Commission adopted that anti-dumping regulation by reference to a normal value determined on ‘[an]other reasonable basis’ (in this case, on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for like products in the Community) without conducting further investigations to ascertain a normal value after two companies in a country which the Commission had initially considered to be an analogue country had been contacted in writing but to no effect (one of them not replying at all and the other indicating its willingness to cooperate but failing to respond to the questionnaire which was then sent to it), and parties to the proceedings had drawn the Commission’s attention to another possible analogue country?


(1)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.
Case T-124/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM –Roncato (CARLO RONCATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for community word mark CARLO RONCATO — Unregistered national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO — Earlier national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO — No likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character and repute of the earlier marks — Due cause for the use of the mark applied for — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010221EN.01004301.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/43





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Valigeria Roncato v OHIM –Roncato (CARLO RONCATO)
(Case T-124/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for community word mark CARLO RONCATO - Unregistered national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO - Earlier national figurative and word marks RV RONCATO and RONCATO - No likelihood of unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character and repute of the earlier marks - Due cause for the use of the mark applied for - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 221/70
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Valigeria Roncato SpA (Campodarsego, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roncato Srl (Campodarsego) (represented by: M. Cartella and M. Fazzini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2009 (Cases R 237/2008-1 and R 236/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Valigeria Roncato SpA and Roncato Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Valigeria Roncato SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, of 6.6.2009.
Case C-190/09: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cyprus, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, genetically modified organism, renewable energy, substitute fuel, transport policy








C_2010288EN.01002702.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/27






Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
(Case C-190/09) (1)

()
(2010/C 288/47)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5774 — Holtzbrinck/Bertelsmann/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, mass media, merger control, press undertaking, television








C_2010182EN.01001201.xml










7.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/12







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5774 — Holtzbrinck/Bertelsmann/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2010/C 182/05)


1.   

On 28 June 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH & Co. KG (‘Holtzbrinck’, Germany) and Bertelsmann AG (‘Bertelsmann’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Premium Vertriebs GmbH (‘Premium’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.



2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Holtzbrinck: international media company active in trade publishing, education and science, newspaper and magazines, as well as electronic media and services,










—


for Bertelsmann: international media company active in television, radio, publishing and other media and communication services,










—


for Premium: online distribution platform for all forms of books, primarily for German language digital publishing products (‘e-books’).






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.5774 — Holtzbrinck/Bertelsmann/JV, 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’).