do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6447 — IAG/bmi)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, merger control, transport company








C_2012046EN.01001401.xml










17.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6447 — IAG/bmi)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 46/04






1.


On 10 February 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking International Airlines Group (IAG — United Kingdom) directly or via its subsidiary BA acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking British Midlands Limited (bmi — United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for IAG: air transport for passengers, air transport for cargo, airport groundhandling services and maintenance, repair and overhaul services,










—


for bmi: air transport for passengers, air transport for cargo, airport groundhandling services and maintenance, repair and overhaul services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6447 — IAG/bmi, 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’).
Case T-89/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, oil industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012126EN.01001902.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/19





Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)
(Case T-89/12)
2012/C 126/39
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.B. Devaureix)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ajuntament de Roses, Roses (Girona), Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;










—


declare the proposed evidence admissible;










—


accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 7 440 407‘R’ for the goods in Class 25 in respect of which registration was originally sought, and those in Class 35 in respect of which registration has been refused;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘R’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 (application No 7440407).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ajuntament de Roses.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark No 2593913 for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25 and 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld for some of the goods and services against which it was brought, in Classes 25 and 35, and application rejected in respect of those goods.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: action dismissed.

Pleas in law: Erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs.
Case C-89/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract staff, interpretation of the law, joint venture, work contract








C_2012133EN.01001801.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation
(Case C-89/12)
2012/C 133/32
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Rose Marie Bark

Respondent in cassation: Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

Question referred

Should Article 11(2) of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, annexed to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 (1) of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking, in conjunction with Article 2 of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union, and more specifically the pay conditions of those conditions of employment, are applicable to staff of the Galileo Joint Undertaking who are employed on fixed-term contracts?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 138, p. 1.
Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Changes to public service obligations concerning scheduled air services  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, air transport, inland transport, public service, transport regulations








C_2012046EN.01000201.xml










17.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/2





Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Changes to public service obligations concerning scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 46/02






Member State


France




Route concerned


Annecy (Meythet)–Paris (Orly)




Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations


5 December 2004




Date of entry into force of the changes


The day after the publication of this notice.




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


Order of 10 January 2012 amending the Order of 17 August 2004 imposing public service obligations concerning the air route between Annecy and Paris
NOR: DEVA1131814A
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
For further information please contact:





Direction générale de l’aviation civile




DTA/SDT/T2




50 rue Henry Farman




75720 Paris Cedex 15




FRANCE




Tel. +33 158094321




E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Case T-218/11: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Dagher v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, arms control, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, import restriction, precious stones








C_2012118EN.01002502.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/25





Order of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Dagher v Council
(Case T-218/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Non-contractual liability)
2012/C 118/43
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinides, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, annulment of Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 60) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ L 28, p. 32), in so far as the applicant's name has been placed on the list of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply and, secondly, a claim for damages

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.










2.


The claim for damages is dismissed.










3.


The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs relating to the application for annulment.










4.


The applicant shall pay the costs relating to the claim for damages.










5.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
Case C-83/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa V o
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Germany, fraud








C_2012126EN.01000701.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa V o
(Case C-83/12)
2012/C 126/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Minh Khoa V o

Other party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Are Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (‘the Visa Code’), (1) which regulate the issue and annulment of a uniform visa, to be interpreted as precluding criminal liability, resulting from the application of national legislation, for the smuggling of foreign nationals in cases where, although they hold visas, the persons smuggled obtained those visas by deceiving the competent authorities of another Member State as to the true purpose of their journey?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.
Case C-84/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Ezatollah Rahmanian Koushkaki v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Germany, Schengen Agreement








C_2012133EN.01001701.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Ezatollah Rahmanian Koushkaki v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-84/12)
2012/C 133/31
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rahmanian Koushkaki

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


In order for the court to direct the defendant to issue a Schengen visa to the applicant, must the court be satisfied that, pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Visa Code, (1) the applicant intends to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for, or is it sufficient if the court, after examining Article 32(1)(b) of the Visa Code, has no doubts based on special circumstances as to the applicant’s stated intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for?










2.


Does the Visa Code establish a non-discretionary right to the issue of a Schengen visa if the entry conditions, in particular those of Article 21(1) of the Visa Code, are satisfied and there are no grounds for refusing the visa pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Visa Code?










3.


Does the Visa Code preclude a national provision whereby a foreigner may, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, be issued with a visa for transit through or an intended stay in the territory of the Schengen States of no more than three months within a six-month period from the date of first entry (Schengen visa)?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), OJ 2009, L 243, p. 1.
Case C-91/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, aesthetic surgery, interpretation of the law, tax exemption








C_2012118EN.01001902.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB
(Case C-91/12)
2012/C 118/31
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Skatteverket

Respondent: PFC Clinic AB

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the stated exemption from taxation covers services such as those at issue in the present case and which consist of:






(a)


cosmetic surgery,










(b)


cosmetic treatments?














2.


Does it affect that assessment if the surgery or treatments are carried out with the purpose of preventing or treating sicknesses, physical impairments or injuries?










3.


If due account is to be taken of the purpose, can the patient’s understanding of the purpose of the intervention be taken into consideration?










4.


Is it of any importance to the assessment whether the intervention is carried out by licensed medical professionals, or that such professionals decide on its purpose?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( OJ C 41, 14.2.2012 )
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Netherlands, Spain, State aid, Veneto, control of State aid, economic recession, financial intervention, financial services, heritage protection, hotel industry, natural disaster, property market








C_2012046EN.01001501.xml










17.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/15





Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 41 of 14 February 2012
)
2012/C 46/05
On the cover and on page 5, title:
for:

read:
Case T-572/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, damages, freedom of religious beliefs, international sanctions, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01001301.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/13





Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council
(Case T-572/11 R)
(Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
2012/C 109/29
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures, in particular, application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1) insofar as those texts refer to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.