do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-629/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, economic reconstruction, financial loss, tax relief








C_2012049EN.01002801.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/28





Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission
(Case T-629/11)
2012/C 49/50
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkemeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporate tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (document C(2011) 275) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: compliance with the private creditor principle
In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because the beneficiary undertakings provide consideration of equal value in return which bears comparison with the conduct of a private creditor in a market economy.










2.


Second plea in law: no selectivity
The applicant submits in that regard that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because that provision does not have the effect of selectively favouring certain undertakings.










3.


Third plea in law: protection of legitimate expectations
In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the legitimate expectations of undertakings which have made arrangements regarding assets before they know about a procedure initiated by the Commission under Article 108(2) TFEU enjoy protection.
Case C-623/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Société Geodis Calberson GE v FranceAgriMer
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, agricultural product, award of contract, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, jurisdiction








C_2012039EN.01001101.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/11






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Société Geodis Calberson GE v FranceAgriMer
(Case C-623/11)
(2012/C 39/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Société Geodis Calberson GE

Respondent: FranceAgriMer

Question referred

The proceedings are stayed … until the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have given its ruling on the question whether the provisions of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 (1) of 18 January 1999 are to be interpreted as conferring on the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated for receiving the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to Russia makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular, actions for compensation for damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).
Case T-628/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord v Commission
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, VAT, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, financial loss, tax relief








C_2012049EN.01002701.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/27





Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord v Commission
(Case T-628/11)
2012/C 49/49
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Biogas Nord AG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkemeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporate tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (document C(2011) 275) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: compliance with the private creditor principle
In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because the beneficiary undertakings provide consideration of equal value in return which bears comparison with the conduct of a private creditor in a market economy.










2.


Second plea in law: no selectivity
The applicant submits in that regard that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because that provision does not have the effect of selectively favouring certain undertakings.










3.


Third plea in law: protection of legitimate expectations
In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the legitimate expectations of undertakings which have made arrangements regarding assets before they know about a procedure initiated by the Commission under Article 108(2) TFEU enjoy protection.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1284/2011 of 5 December 2011 establishing a prohibition of fishing for other species in Norwegian waters of IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, North Sea, Norway, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2011328EN.01003201.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 328/32








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1284/2011
of 5 December 2011
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for other species in Norwegian waters of IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular, it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 5 December 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 24, 27.1.2011, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


78/T&Q




Member State


The Netherlands




Stock


OTH/04-N.




Species


Other species




Zone


Norwegian waters of IV




Date


21.11.2011
Case T-636/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2012065EN.01001303.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/13





Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)
(Case T-636/11)
2012/C 65/26
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hostel Drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aznar textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

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) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2;










—


reject the opposition;










—


refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MY drap’ for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 24

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aznar textil, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘BON DRAP’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 26, which is well known in the Community

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the conflicting marks are not similar and there is no likelihood of confusion.
Case T-613/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — VMS Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, economic reconstruction, infringement of EU law, tax exemption








C_2012032EN.01003501.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/35





Action brought on 5 December 2011 — VMS Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-613/11)
2012/C 32/71
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, G. Burwitz, M. Maier and P. Werner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275 final, in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 absence of prima facie selectivity of the measure
The applicant submits in the context of the first plea inter alia that the provision in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) regarding the fiscal carry forward of losses by undertakings in difficulty, which are taken over by another undertaking with the objective of restructuring, is not selective. In the applicant’s view the provision does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU because it does not lay down any exception to the relevant reference system.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty is a general measure
In that regard the applicant submits inter alia that the technical differentiation on the basis of an undertaking’s economic position and ability to pay is a technical provision which, as a general measure, cannot come within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. In the applicant’s opinion such a provision, in the context of an overall economic assessment, is capable of benefiting all undertakings even if, at a particular point in time, only some undertakings are in fact in a position to actually use the provision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the provision is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system
The applicant submits in this respect that the provision in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system and does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU for that reason also.
European territorial cooperation : building bridges between people.
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU regional policy, regional cooperation, regional development, regional integration

K
N
-
3
1
-
1
1
-
2
8
8
-
E
N
-
P

“A bird ﬂ ying over the Upper Rhine sees no borders. The challenge is 
how to make this happen on the ground.” 

Joachim Beck, the Euro-Institute, Germany

EUREG07B-1045 - ECT Poster v06.indd   1

28/11/11   14:08
Case T-617/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01003701.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/37





Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)
(Case T-617/11)
2012/C 32/73
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Meyr-Melnhof Karton AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: P. Baronikians and N. Wittich, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stora Enso Oyj (Helsinki, Finland)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 in case R 2139/2010-2;










—


Reject the opposition against the Community trade mark application No 8197469; and










—


Order that the defendant pays the applicant’s costs incurred before OHIM and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SILVAWHITE’, for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8197469

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: Finnish trade mark registration No 231953 of the word ‘SILVAPRESS’, for goods in class 16; International trade mark registration No 872793 of the word ‘SILVAPRESS’, for goods in class 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that likelihood of confusion exists between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting on 5 December 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.692 — IBM Maintenance Services — Rapporteur: Estonia
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: dominant position, information technology industry, maintenance








C_2012018EN.01000401.xml










21.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/4





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting on 5 December 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.692 — IBM Maintenance Services
Rapporteur: Estonia
2012/C 18/04






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 21 November 2011 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by IBM are suitable, necessary and proportionate.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by IBM, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










5.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case F-132/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: exchange of information, labour law, paid leave








C_2012065EN.01002302.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/23





Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-132/11)
2012/C 65/43
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request (i) to inform him in writing of the total number of working days of leave accrued in the years prior to 2005 and in the period from 2005 to 2010 to which he was entitled on the date on which he submitted his request and the number of working days leave to which he would be entitled by the end of 2010; (ii) to take all those days leave; and (iii) to notify him of any grounds on which those request may be refused.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission rejecting the claims set out in the request of 25 September 2010 which was sent to the appointing authority;










—


In so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for, or annul, Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011, received by the applicant on a date not before 6 April 2011;










—


Annul the decision issued by the Commission — whatever the form in which it was adopted — rejecting the claims set out in the complaint of 25 April 2011;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-622/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, redemption, tax relief








C_2012073EN.01001501.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV
(Case C-622/11)
2012/C 73/27
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Pactor Vastgoed BV

Question referred

Does the Sixth Directive (1) allow, in the event that the VAT initially deducted in accordance with Article 20 of the Sixth Directive is adjusted in such a way that the amount of the deduction must be reimbursed in full or in part, that amount to be charged to a person other than the taxable person who applied the deduction in the past, in particular — as is the case when Article 12a of the Wet (op de omzetbelasting 1968) (Law on turnover tax 1968) is applied — to a person to whom a property has been supplied by that taxable person?


(1)  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).