do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5952 — CPPIB/Onex/Tomkins)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control








C_2010355EN.01002401.xml










29.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/24





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5952 — CPPIB/Onex/Tomkins)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 355/04
On 10 September 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 32010M5952. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6040 — Europcar/Daimler/car2go Hamburg JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2010355EN.01002402.xml










29.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/24





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6040 — Europcar/Daimler/car2go Hamburg JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 355/05
On 17 December 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 32010M6040. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-625/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, development plan, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2011103EN.01001201.xml










2.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/12





Action brought on 29 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-625/10)
2011/C 103/21
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, as a result of the inadequacy of the measures adopted to implement the first railway package, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under:






—


Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Directive 91/440/EEC, as amended, (1) and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC; (2)











—


Article 6(2) to (5) of Directive 2001/14/EC;










—


Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC;














—


order French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on two pleas in support of its action.
First, it criticises the defendant for failing to comply with all the obligations laid down in the first railway package, which requires not only the separation of the entities responsible for operating rail transport services (in France, the SNCF) from those responsible for managing the infrastructure (in France, RFF) but also that the ‘essential’ functions of the allocation of railway capacity, the setting of charges for the use of the infrastructure and the issuing of licences be carried out by independent bodies. However, the SNCF has responsibility for certain essential functions relating to the allocation of train paths which it performs via the Direction des Circulations Ferroviaires (DCF). That specialist service is not legally independent of the SNCF and nor is it independent in terms of organisation or decision making.
Second, the Commission submits that the national legislation does not transpose correctly or fully the requirements under Directive 2001/14/EC concerning the establishment of a performance scheme relating to the charges made for access to the railway infrastructure. A further difficulty with the French legislation is that it fails to provide sufficient incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges.


(1)  Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25).

(2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).
Case T-589/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Just Music Fernsehbetrieb v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox)
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011072EN.01002001.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/20





Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Just Music Fernsehbetrieb v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox)
(Case T-589/10)
2011/C 72/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Just Music Fernsehbetrieb GmbH (Landshut, Germany) (represented by: T. Kaus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: France Télécom SA (Paris, France)

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 14 October 2010 in case R 1408/2009-1










—


Order the defendant to reject the opposition decision of 30 September 2010 in case B 1304494 and to allow the application No 6163778 for registration in its entirety










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division and










—


In the alternative, stay the proceedings until a final decision is taken on the application for revocation lodged by the applicant on 21 December 2010 at OHIM against the earlier Community trade mark No 3693108.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Jukebox’, for services in classes 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6163778

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3693108 of the figurative mark ‘JUKE BOX’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Articles 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as no proof of genuine use has been provided of the mark cited in the opposition proceedings — Community trade mark registration No 3693108 ‘JUKE BOX’, (ii) Articles 8(1)(b), 9 and 65(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the contested trade mark, and (iii) Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise its powers of investigation and failed to exercise the full remit of its powers.
Case T-593/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011080EN.01002001.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/20





Action brought on 29 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)
(Case T-593/10)
2011/C 80/38
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jian Min Ruan (Mem Martins, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 October 2010, in Case R 576/2010-2, and declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of the CTMR, the opponent’s appeal before OHIM ought to have been upheld and the Opposition Division’s decision to grant in full the complex Community trade mark ‘B’ (No 6.379.721) annulled;










—


order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jian Min Ruan.

Community trade mark concerned: Red and white figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ for goods in Class 25.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: El Corte Inglés, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010355EN.01002601.xml










29.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/26





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 December 2010
2010/C 355/07

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3195




JPY


Japanese yen


108,20




DKK


Danish krone


7,4544




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85345




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9968




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2513




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8255




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,355




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


279,15




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7098




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9823




RON


Romanian leu


4,2890




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0564




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3038




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3221




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2666




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7450




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7091




KRW


South Korean won


1 512,00




ZAR


South African rand


8,8242




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,7414




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3879




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 898,93




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0832




PHP


Philippine peso


57,930




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9350




THB


Thai baht


39,829




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2222




MXN


Mexican peso


16,2668




INR


Indian rupee


59,4650






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-621/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 December 2010 — ‘Balkan and Sea Prоperties’ АDSITS v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna)
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2011072EN.01001503.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 December 2010 — ‘Balkan and Sea Prоperties’ АDSITS v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna)
(Case C-621/10)
2011/C 72/27
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Balkan and Sea Prоperties’ АDSITS

Defendant: Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna)

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 80(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that where there are supplies between connected persons, in so far as the consideration is higher than the open market value, the taxable amount is the open market value of the transaction only if the supplier does not qualify for the full right to deduct the VAT chargeable on the purchase or production of the goods which are supplied?










2.


Is Article 80(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, if the supplier has exercised the full right to deduct VAT on goods and services which are the subject of subsequent supplies between connected persons at a price which is higher than the open market value, and that right to deduct input VAT has not been corrected under Articles 173 to 177 of that Directive, a Member State is not permitted to adopt measures whereby the taxable amount is exclusively the open market value?










3.


Does Article 80(1) of Directive 2006/112 constitute an exhaustive list of cases representing the circumstances in which the Member States may take measures whereby the taxable amount in respect of supplies is to be the open market value of the transaction?










4.


Is a provision of national law such as Article 27(3)(1) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on VAT) permissible in cases other than those listed in Article 80(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112?










5.


In a case such as the present does Article 80(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect, and may the domestic court apply it directly?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Notice of invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on sorghum originating in third countries
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, import, sorghum, third country








C_2010355EN.01003501.xml










29.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/35





Notice of invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on sorghum originating in third countries
2010/C 355/10
I.   PURPOSE







1.


A tendering procedure is opened for the reduction in the import duty on sorghum falling within CN code 1007 00 90 originating in third countries.










2.


The tendering procedure shall be conducted in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1262/2010 (1).




II.   TIME-LIMITS







1.


The deadline for the submission of tenders for the first partial invitation to tender shall be 10:00 (Brussels time) on 13 January 2011.
The deadline for the submission of tenders under subsequent partial invitations to tender shall be on the following days at 10:00 (Brussels time):






—


27 January 2011,










—


10 and 24 February 2011,










—


10 and 24 March 2011,










—


14 and 28 April 2011,










—


12 and 26 May 2011.














2.


This notice is published for the purposes of the present invitation to tender only. Until such time as it is amended or replaced, its terms shall apply to each partial award held during the period of validity of this invitation.




III.   TENDERS







1.


Tenders must be submitted in writing and delivered no later than the dates and times indicated in Title II, either by personal delivery against a receipt or by electronic means, to one of the following addresses:
Delivery address:





Fondo Español de Garantía Agraria (FEGA)




C/ Beneficencia, 8




28004 Madrid




ESPAÑA




E-mail: secreint@fega.mapya.es




Fax +34 915219832 / 913476387




Tenders not submitted by electronic means must be enclosed in two sealed envelopes, one inside the other. The inner envelope must be marked ‘Tender under invitation to tender for the reduction in the import duty on sorghum — Regulation (EU) No 1262/2010’.
Once submitted, no tender may be withdrawn before the Member State concerned has informed the successful bidder of the result of the tender.










2.


The tender, as well as the proof and statement referred to in Article 7(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 (2), must be worded in the official language or one of the official languages of the Member State to whose competent authority the tender is addressed.




IV.   TENDER SECURITY

The tendering security must be made out in favour of the competent authority concerned.
V.   AWARD OF CONTRACTS

Award of the contract shall establish:






(a)


the right to the issue in the Member State in which the tender is submitted of an import licence specifying the reduction in the import duty referred to in the tender, for the quantity offered;










(b)


the obligation to apply in the Member State referred to in point (a) for an import licence for that quantity.






(1)  OJ L 343, 29.12.2010, p. 76.

(2)  OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 57.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6072 — Carlyle/Primondo Operations)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, textile industry








C_2010355EN.01002501.xml










29.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/25





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6072 — Carlyle/Primondo Operations)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 355/06
On 16 December 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 32010M6072. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-599/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Eurocool Logistik GmbH v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)
Date: 2010-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011072EN.01002201.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/22





Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Eurocool Logistik GmbH v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)
(Case T-599/10)
2011/C 72/37
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annul in full the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2010 in Case R 451/2010-1 in which the Opposition Division’s decision of 27 January 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 751 570 is confirmed, reject the opposition and refer the trade mark back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for continuation of the registration proceedings and order the defendant to bear all the costs associated with the present legal dispute, in particular the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Eurocool Logistik GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROCOOL’ for services in Classes 39 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peter Lenger.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark which contains the word element ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ for services in Classes 35 and 39, and the company name ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ used for specific services in national trade.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(2) and Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the applicant in the opposition proceedings was not afforded the opportunity to reply to the other party’s reasoning for the opposition in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).