do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-106/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Eneco Holding NV
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, free movement of capital, privatisation, public sector, restriction on competition








C_2012151EN.01001601.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Eneco Holding NV
(Case C-106/12)
2012/C 151/27
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden

Respondent: Eneco Holding NV

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 345 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’ also include the rule in respect of the absolute ban on privatisation which is at issue in the present case, as set out in the Besluit aandelen netbeheerders (Decree on shares in system operators), in conjunction with Article 93 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity) and Article 85 of the Gaswet (Law on gas), under which shares in a system operator can be transferred only within the circle of public authorities?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does this then have the effect that the rules relating to the free movement of capital are not applicable to the group ban, or at least that a review of the group ban in the light of the rules relating to the free movement of capital is not required?










3.


Are the objectives which also form the basis of the Won (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (Law on independent network operation), that is to say, to achieve transparency in the energy market and to prevent distortions of competition by opposing cross-subsidisation in the broad sense (including strategic information exchange), purely economic interests, or can they also be regarded as interests of a non-economic nature, in the sense that in certain circumstances, as compelling reasons in the general interest, they may constitute a justification for a restriction of the free movement of capital?
Case T-525/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, trade-mark law, wine of superior quality








C_2012109EN.01001002.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/10





Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)
(Case T-525/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO - Earlier Community word mark SERVUS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 109/22
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio (Refrontolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Mannucci and subsequently P. Bullock, Agents)

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG (Linz, Austira) (represented by: C.-R. Haarmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2010 (Case R 1571/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG and Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case C-108/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 29 February 2012 — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative contract, bank charges, consumer credit, credit institution, interest, interpretation of the law, prices








C_2012151EN.01001701.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 29 February 2012 — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea
(Case C-108/12)
2012/C 151/29
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Vâlcea

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

Defendants: Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

Question referred

Can Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘price’, as referred to in that provision, cover the elements which make up the consideration to which a credit institution is entitled by virtue of a consumer credit agreement, that is to say, the annual percentage rate of charge under a consumer credit agreement (as defined in Directive 2008/48 (2) on credit agreements for consumers), formed in particular by the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, bank commissions, and the other fees included and defined in the agreement?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 1987 L 133, p. 66).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, catering, economic concentration, merger control, town planning








C_2012060EN.01001301.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 60/08






1.


On 22 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 Avenance Italia (Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Gemeaz Cusin (Italy) by way of acquisition of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Avenance Italia, which is ultimately jointly controlled by Charterhouse and Robert Zolade, is active in contract foodservices and facilities management services in Italy,










—


Gemeaz Cusin is active in contract foodservices in Italy.














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.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin, 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’).
Training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU law, competition law, in-service training, judge, judicial cooperation








C_2012060EN.01001201.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/12





Training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges
2012/C 60/07
A new call for proposals on training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges has been published on:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/calls/index.html
Deadline for application: 17 April 2012.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012060EN.01000201.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 February 2012
2012/C 60/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3454




JPY


Japanese yen


108,39




DKK


Danish krone


7,4355




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84790




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8275




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2050




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4800




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,900




HUF


Hungarian forint


289,63




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6988




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1410




RON


Romanian leu


4,3480




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3580




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2486




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3396




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4332




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6040




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6846




KRW


South Korean won


1 513,77




ZAR


South African rand


10,1176




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4766




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5710




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 146,01




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0483




PHP


Philippine peso


57,753




RUB


Russian rouble


39,0475




THB


Thai baht


40,833




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2873




MXN


Mexican peso


17,2682




INR


Indian rupee


66,0390






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP(2011) 3460
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Poland, aid to agriculture, complaint to the Commission, consumer information, farmers' income, indemnification, plant disease








C_2012060EN.01001501.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/15





Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP(2011) 3460
2012/C 60/10






1.


The European Commission has received and continues to receive a series of complaints, in which complainants state that as a result of having been given the wrong information by the Polish paying agency, a large number of farmers (cucumber and tomato producers) in Poland did not claim compensation for damage caused by the E. coli outbreak, as they were informed that only producers of cucumbers grown in greenhouses or polytunnels were eligible for compensation.










2.


The European Commission has registered and will continue to register these letters under reference number CHAP(2011) 3460.










3.


Given the significant number of complaints it has received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Internet at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm










4.


The complaint is currently being examined by the Commission in the light of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 71).










5.


The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of this examination and of any follow-up action that the Commission may decide to take.
Case C-107/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Delta NV
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, free movement of capital, privatisation, public sector, restriction on competition








C_2012151EN.01001602.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Delta NV
(Case C-107/12)
2012/C 151/28
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden

Respondent: Delta NV

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 345 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’ also include the rule in respect of the absolute ban on privatisation which is at issue in the present case, as set out in the Besluit aandelen netbeheerders (Decree on shares in system operators), in conjunction with Article 93 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity) and Article 85 of the Gaswet (Law on gas), under which shares in a system operator can be transferred only within the circle of public authorities?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does this then have the effect that the rules relating to the free movement of capital are not applicable to the group ban, or at least that a review of the group ban in the light of the rules relating to the free movement of capital is not required?










3.


Are the objectives which also form the basis of the Won (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (Law on independent network operation), that is to say, to achieve transparency in the energy market and to prevent distortions of competition by opposing cross-subsidisation in the broad sense (including strategic information exchange), purely economic interests, or can they also be regarded as interests of a non-economic nature, in the sense that in certain circumstances, as compelling reasons in the general interest, they may constitute a justification for a restriction of the free movement of capital?
Case F-3/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Accident — Request for a document to be placed on the accident file — Request refused — Measure not having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, medical data, social security








C_2012126EN.01002701.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/27





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-3/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Accident - Request for a document to be placed on the accident file - Request refused - Measure not having an adverse effect - Manifest inadmissibility)
2012/C 126/50
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 15 March 2010 and the claim for compensation for the damage suffered.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.










3.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.






(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011, p. 22.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, aircraft, economic concentration, electronics industry, holding company, maintenance, merger control, new technology








C_2012060EN.01001401.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 60/09






1.


On 21 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 Vision Technologies Aerospace Ltd, (VTA, Singapore), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd, (‘STE’, Singapore), and Pratt and Whitney Line Maintenance Services Inc. (‘PWLMS’, USA) a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (‘UTC’, USA) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of a newly created joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


STE — integrated engineering group providing services in the aerospace, electronics, land systems and marine sectors,










—


VTA — holding company,










—


UTC — high-technology products and services for the buildings system and aerospace industries,










—


PWLMS — aircraft engine washing services,










—


JV — EcoPower aircraft engine washing services.














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.6505 — STE/UTC/JV, 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’).
Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, capital movement, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012060EN.01000101.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/1





Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply
2012/C 60/01
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
The following information is brought to the attention of persons that appear in Annex V to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP (1), and in Annex IB to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG K Coordination Unit




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 55, 29.2.2012, p. 19.

(2)  OJ L 55, 29.2.2012, p. 1.