do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-212/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland)) — Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach (Taxation — Capital duty — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Taxation of a loan taken up by a capital company from a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of the same company — Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax which was no longer in force at the date of its accession to the European Union)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, apprenticeship, interpretation of the law, teaching curriculum








C_2011232EN.01000901.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland)) — Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach
(Case C-212/10) (1)

(Taxation - Capital duty - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Taxation of a loan taken up by a capital company from a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of the same company - Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax which was no longer in force at the date of its accession to the European Union)
(2011/C 232/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax abolished on the date on which it acceded to the European Union — Capital duty — Charging of capital duty on a loan taken out by a capital company with a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of that company

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from reintroducing a capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of the company, where that Member State has previously waived the levying of that tax.


(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
Case T-197/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011226EN.01002203.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/22





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC v Commission
(Case T-197/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
2011/C 226/44
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Stanbrook QC and Y. Virvilis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, V. Bottka and X. Lewis, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FMC Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Case T-313/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Heede v OHIM (Matrix-Energetics)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), alternative medicine, psychology, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01003202.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/32





Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Heede v OHIM (Matrix-Energetics)
(Case T-313/11)
2011/C 238/54
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Günter Heede (Walldorf-Baden, Germany) (represented by R. Utz, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2011 in Case R 1848/2010-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matrix-Energetics’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 44 — application No 8 339 798

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)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the descriptive character of the mark applied for cannot be determined and the mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character; the Board of Appeal erred in making print-outs from the internet, which dated from after the date of filing of the application for registration, the subject-matter of its decision; and furthermore isolated, illegal instances of use of an originally distinctive (fanciful) description on the part of third parties, which commenced after the date of filing, cannot have a negative influence on the registrability of a Community trade mark.
Case T-331/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Besselink v Council
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, constitutional law








C_2011238EN.01003501.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/35





Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Besselink v Council
(Case T-331/11)
2011/C 238/60
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Leonard Besselink (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Council of 1 April 2011 refusing to grant full access to document 9689/10 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 7 April 2011 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/11’; and










—


Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which relates to the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations, as:






—


The Council was wrong in not taking into account the constitutional nature of the document which the applicant requests to have access to;










—


The applicant considers that access to document 9689/10 is also warranted on the basis of the freedom of expression contained in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


The Council omitted to take into account the specific circumstances and subject matter of the present case; and










—


The Council wrongly referred to hypothetical negative consequences of disclosure for future negotiations to be conducted by the Union.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been wrongly applied, and the principle of proportionality breached, insofar as the Council has failed to consider whether it was appropriate to grant partial access and to confine refusal to the parts of document 9689/10 that were appropriate and strictly necessary.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the contested decision.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6279 — Toshiba/Landis+Gyr) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic device, exchange of information, merger control, technology








C_2011176EN.01001201.xml










16.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6279 — Toshiba/Landis+Gyr)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 176/10






1.


On 1 June 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Toshiba Corporation (‘Toshiba’-Japan), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of Landis+Gyr AG and its subsidiaries (‘Landis+Gyr’-Switzerland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking Toshiba: active in the manufacturing and marketing of a diverse range of high technology electronic and electrical products,










—


for undertaking Landis+Gyr: active in the manufacturing and sale of electricity, gas, heat and water metering products to utilities and consumers which improve energy efficiency and the sustainable use of energy resources.














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.6279 — Toshiba/Landis+Gyr, 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 F-82/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Nolin v Commission (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, indemnification, pay








C_2011252EN.01005401.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/54





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Nolin v Commission
(Case F-82/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 252/117
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips of 1 January 2010 issued within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-82/10 Nolin v Commission.










2.


Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.01.2011, p. 38.
Case T-186/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Access to the file — Fines — Leniency Notice — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011226EN.01002002.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/20





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay v Commission
(Case T-186/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Access to the file - Fines - Leniency Notice - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
2011/C 226/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Solvay SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by O.W. Brouwer, D. Mes, lawyers, M. O’Regan and A. Villette, Solicitors, and subsequently by O.W. Brouwer, A. Stoffer, lawyer, M. O’Regan and A. Villette)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1(m) of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case C.38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Solvay SA had participated in the infringement during the period prior to May 1995;










2.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Solvay in Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 1766 final at EUR 139,5 million;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders Solvay to bear 80 % of its own costs and to pay 80 % of the Commission’s;










5.


Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs and to pay 20 % of Solvay’s.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Case F-78/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment, allowances and expenses, life assurance, pay, regulations for civil servants, social-security benefit








C_2011252EN.01005303.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/53





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament
(Case F-78/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 252/116
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Pilar Antelo Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-78/10 Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament.










2.


Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 65.
Case T-199/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Ziegler v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Appreciable effect on trade — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, fine, price agreement, provision of services, unlawful agreement








C_2011226EN.01002401.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/24





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Ziegler v Commission
(Case T-199/08) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Appreciable effect on trade - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
2011/C 226/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez and J. Lodomez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ziegler SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings before the Court.






(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
Case F-97/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Kerstens v Commission
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, indemnification, pay








C_2011252EN.01005802.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/58





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Kerstens v Commission
(Case F-97/10) (1)

2011/C 252/131
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p 41.
Case C-152/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) — Plastic urine drainage bags intended exclusively for use with catheters — Headings 9018 and 3926 — ‘Parts’ and ‘accessories’ — Other articles of plastics)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, interpretation of the law, medical device, packaging product, plastics








C_2011232EN.01000802.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/8






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-152/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) - Plastic urine drainage bags intended exclusively for use with catheters - Headings 9018 and 3926 - ‘Parts’ and ‘accessories’ - Other articles of plastics)
(2011/C 232/13)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Unomedical A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a dialyser — Classification under subheading 9018 90 30 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a catheter — Classification under subheading 9018 39 00 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Definition of ‘Part and/or accessory’

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning that a dialysis drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and can be used only with, a dialyser (artificial kidney), had, between May 2001 and December 2003, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’ and that a urine drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and therefore can be used only in connection with, a catheter had, during the same period, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’.


(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.