do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-64/11: Action brought on 11 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, tax system








C_2011113EN.01000803.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/8





Action brought on 11 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-64/11)
2011/C 113/17
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by adopting Article 17(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;










—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The provision at issue introduces special treatment for unrealised capital gains on assets of companies that transfer their residence to another Member State of the European Union, cease their activity in Spain in order to continue it in another Member State or transfer their activities to another Member State. In those cases, Spain taxes the unrealised capital gains at the time of exit, so that the affected companies must settle a tax debt in respect of unrealised and hypothetical revenues which may never be realised. That regime amounts to an exception to the normal rule according to which tax is levied on revenue actually obtained by the taxable person during the taxable period.
The Commission submits that that aspect of the Spanish legislation is incompatible with the TFEU and with the EEA Agreement, since it is a discriminatory measure, and in any event a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of establishment. The Spanish rule could discourage movements of companies or assets which would result in a better distribution of economic resources.
The Commission considers that companies must have the right to transfer their registered office or individual assets to another Member State without being subject to excessively complex and onerous procedures. According to the Commission, there is no justification for the immediate charging of taxes on unrealised capital gains when a Spanish company is transferred to another Member State or when a permanent establishment ceases activity in Spain or transfers its assets from Spain to another Member State, if that kind of taxation is not found in comparable national situations.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6125 — Reale/Unnim/CSG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance company, investment company, merger control








C_2011043EN.01002101.xml










11.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/21





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6125 — Reale/Unnim/CSG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 43/10






1.


On 4 February 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Reale Seguros Generales, SA, (‘Reale’, Spain) controlled by Società Reale Mutua di Assicurazioni (‘Reale Mutua Group’, Italy) and Unnim (‘Unnim’, Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Caixasabadell Companyia d’Assegurances Generals, SA (‘CSG’), Spain by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Reale: active in the insurance sector in Spain,










—


for Reale Mutua Group: international group active in the banking, insurance, real estate and services sectors,










—


for Unnim: group of companies that engages mainly in banking operations and to a much lesser extent insurance distribution in Spain,










—


for CSG: active in the non-life insurance sector (accidents, fires and natural disasters, other property losses, general liability, diverse pecuniary losses as well as legal defence and assistance) in Spain.














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.6125 — Reale/Unnim/CSG, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6079 — BBVA/Dogus Holdings/Turkiye Garanti Bankasi JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, credit institution, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, merger control








C_2011043EN.01000201.xml










11.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6079 — BBVA/Dogus Holdings/Turkiye Garanti Bankasi JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 43/03
On 3 February 2011, 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 32011M6079. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6135 — Carlyle/Administratiekantoor Alpinvest/Alpinvest) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control








C_2011043EN.01001901.xml










11.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6135 — Carlyle/Administratiekantoor Alpinvest/Alpinvest)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 43/08






1.


On 2 February 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, USA) and Stichting Administratiekantoor AlpInvest (‘AlpInvest Partners SPV’, the Netherlands), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of AlpInvest Partners NV (‘AlpInvest Partners’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Carlyle: Global alternative asset manager, which sponsors funds that invest globally across three asset classes: private equity, real estate and credit alternatives (e.g., leveraged loans, bonds, distressed debt and mezzanine debt) in a range of industries,










—


for AlpInvest Partners SPV: Special purpose acquisition vehicle created for purposes of the investment in AlpInvest,










—


for AlpInvest Partners: Fund management, primarily for its current shareholders, including fund investments, co-investments (direct minority shareholdings), secondary fund investments and investments in mezzanine debt.














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.6135 — Carlyle/Administratiekantoor Alpinvest/Alpinvest, 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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011043EN.01000301.xml










11.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 February 2011
2011/C 43/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3604




JPY


Japanese yen


112,71




DKK


Danish krone


7,4559




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84780




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8234




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3105




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,9320




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,246




HUF


Hungarian forint


273,28




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7043




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9337




RON


Romanian leu


4,2645




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1770




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3559




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3572




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5947




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7737




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7402




KRW


South Korean won


1 525,19




ZAR


South African rand


9,9100




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9605




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4140




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 165,92




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1472




PHP


Philippine peso


59,466




RUB


Russian rouble


39,8830




THB


Thai baht


41,914




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2730




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5127




INR


Indian rupee


62,2080






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-83/11: Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax ItM v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011113EN.01001602.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/16





Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax ItM v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)
(Case T-83/11)
2011/C 113/33
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heating Company BVBA (The) (Dilsen, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010, in so far as it declared Community design No 000593959-0001 invalid;










—


annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs incurred by The Heating Company BVBA in the proceedings before OHIM;










—


order OHIM and The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It SRL the costs, dues and legal fees relating to the present proceedings, together with any additional sums required by law;










—


order The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, dues and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM, together with any additional sums required by law.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 000593959/0001 (Radiators for heating)

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The Heating Company BVBA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The contested Community design does not meet the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 9 of the Community Designs Regulation (CDR), since it lacks distinctive characteristics when compared with German design No 5 covered by the multiple registration No 401 10481.8, published upon application by The Heating Company BVBA and valid in France, Italy and the Benelux as international design No DM/060899

Decision of the Cancellation Division: To declare the Community design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To annul the contested decision and declare the Community design invalid

Pleas in law: The individual character of Community design No 000593959-0001
Case C-63/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovereto (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against John Austine
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, return migration








C_2011120EN.01000502.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovereto (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against John Austine
(Case C-63/11)
2011/C 120/09
Language of the case: italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Rovereto

Party to the main proceedings

John Austine

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, are Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing that an illegally staying third country national who fails to cooperate in the administrative return procedure is to be subject to measures involving deprivation of liberty on the basis of measures, other than detention measures, as defined under national law, in the absence of the requirements and safeguards laid down in Articles 15 and 16, on grounds of failure to comply with a removal order issued by the competent administrative authorities in accordance with Article 8(3) of the directive?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6088 — HIG Capital/Der Grune Punkt — Duales System Deutschland)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, recycling technology, waste recycling








C_2011043EN.01000202.xml










11.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6088 — HIG Capital/Der Grune Punkt — Duales System Deutschland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 43/04
On 7 February 2011, 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 32011M6088. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Communication concerning the entry into force, in trade between the European Union and the countries of the Common Market of the South (Mercado Común del Sur — Mercosur), of the provisions laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ for the purpose of applying tariff preferences granted by the European Union to certain products from developing countries (regional cumulation of origin)
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Mercosur, Mercosur countries, certificate of origin, customs regulations, developing countries, generalised preferences, originating product








C_2011043EN.01000102.xml










11.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/1





Communication concerning the entry into force, in trade between the European Union and the countries of the Common Market of the South (Mercado Común del Sur — Mercosur), of the provisions laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ for the purpose of applying tariff preferences granted by the European Union to certain products from developing countries (regional cumulation of origin)
2011/C 43/02
Article 86 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), provides for regional cumulation to apply, inter alia, to those countries which are parties to the Agreement establishing the Common Market of the South (Mercado Común del Sur — Mercosur), in the context of the European Union's rules of origin applicable to the generalised system of preferences (GSP).
In particular, paragraph 2 of Article 86 includes a provision for the members of each of the regional groups mentioned to transmit to the European Commission, through the Secretariat of the regional group concerned or another competent joint body representing all the members of the group in question, undertakings to comply with the GSP rules of origin and to provide the necessary administrative cooperation for the control of certificates of origin Form A and invoice declarations.
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay have met this obligation, and the provisions of regional cumulation therefore apply to these countries from 1 January 2011.


(1)  OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
Case T-84/11: Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax It v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)
Date: 2011-02-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011113EN.01001701.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/17





Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax It v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)
(Case T-84/11)
2011/C 113/34
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heating Company BVBA (The) (Dilsen, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010, in so far as it declared Community design No 000593959-0002 invalid;










—


annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs incurred by The Heating Company BVBA in the proceedings before OHIM;










—


order OHIM and The Heating Company to pay Antrax It SRL the costs, dues and legal fees relating to the present proceedings, together with any additional sums required by law;










—


order The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, dues and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM, together with any additional sums required by law.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 000593959-0002 (radiators for heating)

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The Heating Company BVBA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The contested Community design does not meet the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 9 of the Community Designs Regulation (CDR), being almost identical to the German design No 4 covered by the multiple registration No 401 10481,8, published on 10 September 2002, and valid in France, Italy and Benelux as international design No DM/0608899

Decision of the Cancellation Division: To declare the Community design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To annul the contested decision and declare the Community design invalid

Pleas in law: The individual character of Community design No 000593959-0002.