do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-280/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 168, 169 and 178 — Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity — Purchase of land by the partners of a partnership — Invoices drawn up prior to registration of the partnership seeking the deduction)
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, economic activity, invoicing, tax relief








C_2012118EN.01000201.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
(Case C-280/10) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9, 168, 169 and 178 - Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity - Purchase of land by the partners of a partnership - Invoices drawn up prior to registration of the partnership seeking the deduction)
2012/C 118/02
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 9, 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity but prior to registration of a partnership — Purchase of land by the future partners

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 9, 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits neither partners nor their partnership to exercise the right to deduct input VAT on investment costs incurred by those partners, before the creation and registration of the partnership, for the purposes of and with the view to its economic activity.










2.


Articles 168 and 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the input VAT paid cannot be deducted by a partnership when the invoice, drawn up before the registration and identification of the partnership for the purposes of value added tax, was issued in the name of the partners of that partnership.






(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Case T-104/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2012157EN.01000701.xml










2.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/7





Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)
(Case T-104/12)
2012/C 157/11
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Vykydal, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Performance Industries Manufacturing, Inc. (Odessa, Florida, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 December 2011 in Case R 512/2011-4, VORTEX/VORTEX, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Performance Industries Manufacturing Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘VORTEX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 12 (Registration No 5 375 324).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘VORTEX’, registered for services in Classes 35 and 39 (mark No 5 514 104).

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6445 — Eurochem/BASF Antwerp Assets)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fertiliser, merger control, mining extraction








C_2012062EN.01000101.xml










1.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6445 — Eurochem/BASF Antwerp Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 62/01
On 17 February 2012, 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 32012M6445. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-354/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid — Tax-exempt reserve fund — Incompatibility with the common market — Recovery — Failure to execute)
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, common market, control of State aid, infringement of EU law








C_2012118EN.01000202.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/2





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-354/10) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - State aid - Tax-exempt reserve fund - Incompatibility with the common market - Recovery - Failure to execute)
2012/C 118/03
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary for recovery of the aid held unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(1) (excepting the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3) of the Commission decision of 18 July 2007 (C(2007) 3251) concerning the tax-exempt reserve fund (State aid C 37/2005)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary for recovery, in accordance with Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2008/723/EC of 18 July 2007 on State aid C 37/05 (ex NN 11/04) implemented by Greece — tax-exempt reserve fund, of the aid held unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, excepting the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 to 6 of that decision;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, agricultural production, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, farming sector, fishing industry, silviculture, small and medium-sized enterprises, technical cooperation








C_2012062EN.01000301.xml










1.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/3





Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001
2012/C 62/03
Aid No: SA.34214 (12/XA)
Member State: Italy
Region: Veneto
Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Piani integrati a supporto delle imprese venete per la creazione di valore in azienda — Linea 3 — III Fase — Valorizzazione del capitale umano.
Legal basis: LR 10/90 «Ordinamento sistema di formazione professionale e organizzazione delle politiche regionali del lavoro», Dgr n. 1566 del 26 maggio 2009«Politiche attive per il contrasto alla crisi occupazionale», Dgr n. 1735 del 26 ottobre 2011 e Ddr n. 933 del 22 dicembre 2011.
La data di applicazione decorre dalla data di pubblicazione del numero di registro della richiesta di esenzione sul sito della direzione generale dell'Agricoltura e dello sviluppo rurale della Commissione.
Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 0,16 million
Maximum aid intensity: 100 %
Date of implementation: —
Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 16 February 2012-31 December 2013
Objective of aid: Technical support (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)
Sector(s) concerned: Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Name and address of the granting authority: 





Regione del Veneto




Palazzo Balbi




Dorsoduro 3901




30123 Venezia VE




ITALIA




Website: http://www.regione.veneto.it/Servizi+alla+Persona/Formazione+e+Lavoro/SpazioOperatori.htm
Other information: —
Case C-220/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Star Coaches s. r. o. v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — VAT Directive — Special tax scheme for travel agents — Supply to travel agents of a coach transport service but no other services)
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, VAT, bus, carriage of passengers, travel agency








C_2012235EN.01000401.xml










4.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/4





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Star Coaches s. r. o. v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu
(Case C-220/11) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - VAT Directive - Special tax scheme for travel agents - Supply to travel agents of a coach transport service but no other services)
2012/C 235/05
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Star Coaches s. r. o.

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of the special scheme for travel agents to an economic operator which, without being a travel agent, supplies travel agents with a bus transport service but no other transport services

Operative part of the order

A transport company which merely carries out the transport of persons by providing coach transport to travel agents and does not provide any other services such as accommodation, tour guiding or advice does not effect transactions falling within the special scheme for travel agents in Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.


(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
2012/151/EU: European Council Decision of 1 March 2012 electing the President of the European Council
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: European Council
Subjects: European Council, appointment of members, president of an institution








L_2012077EN.01001701.xml










16.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 77/17








            EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 1 March 2012
         
electing the President of the European Council
(2012/151/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15(5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 1 December 2009, by European Council Decision 2009/879/EU (1), Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY was elected President of the European Council for the period from 1 December 2009 until 31 May 2012.












(2)


In accordance with the Treaty, the holder of the office of President of the European Council may be re-elected once,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY is hereby re-elected President of the European Council for the period from 1 June 2012 until 30 November 2014.


Article 2
This Decision shall be notified to Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY by the Secretary-General of the Council.
It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 1 March 2012.


For the European Council


The President

H. VAN ROMPUY
            





(1)  
            OJ L 315, 2.12.2009, p. 48.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012062EN.01000201.xml










1.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 February 2012
2012/C 62/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3443




JPY


Japanese yen


107,92




DKK


Danish krone


7,4356




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84390




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8088




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2051




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4405




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,843




HUF


Hungarian forint


288,71




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6985




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1212




RON


Romanian leu


4,3486




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3450




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2414




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3282




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4252




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5902




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6726




KRW


South Korean won


1 502,28




ZAR


South African rand


10,0080




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4608




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5740




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 158,52




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0275




PHP


Philippine peso


57,438




RUB


Russian rouble


39,1354




THB


Thai baht


40,665




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2872




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1949




INR


Indian rupee


65,8100






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-114/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Intergovernmental Convention (EU), broadcasting, intellectual property, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2012138EN.01000502.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/5






Action brought on 1 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-114/12)
(2012/C 138/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul the Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations










—


order the Council to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







 



First plea: Infringement of Articles 2(2) and 3(2) TFUE, because the Council has considered that the matter is one of shared competence, and has authorised Member States or an Institution other than the Commission to negotiate the agreement, in a matter of exclusive competence. The future Council of Europe Convention may affect or alter the scope of EU Directives dealing with the rights of broadcasting organisations, as well as that of EU Directives on intellectual property law generally. The future Convention will be based on the existing EU acquis, and will inevitably lead to the amendment of the EU Directives should a higher degree of protection be granted to broadcasting organisations within the Council of Europe.










 



Second plea: Breach of the procedure and the conditions to authorise negotiations of international agreements by the Union. It is only the Council (and not the Council acting jointly with Member States) which is competent to authorise negotiations by the Union.










 



Third plea: Violation of the voting rules in the Council. By adopting the contested Decision, the Council violated Article 218(8) pursuant to which the Council shall act by qualified majority.










 



Forth plea: Breach of the objectives of the Treaties and the principle of sincere cooperation. The Council, by acting jointly with the Member States, undermines the standing of the Union and weakens the institutional framework of the Union.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6453 — Carlyle/Dr. Paeger/Quadriga Capital IV/AMEOS) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: board of directors, economic concentration, investment company, medical institution, merger control, psychiatric institution, supplementary pension








C_2012062EN.01000401.xml










1.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6453 — Carlyle/Dr. Paeger/Quadriga Capital IV/AMEOS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 62/04






1.


On 16 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 funds managed by The Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, US), Dr. Axel Paeger and companies affiliated with Quadriga Capital Europe IV GP Ltd (‘Quadriga Capital IV’, Jersey) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of AMEOS Holding AG and AMEOS AG (together referred as ‘AMEOS’, Switzerland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Carlyle: alternative asset manager, especially managing pension funds' sponsored assets,










—


for Dr. Axel Paeger: co-founder and — since foundation — Chief Executive Officer of AMEOS Holding AG and AMEOS AG,










—


for Quadriga Capital IV: investment vehicle sponsored by pension funds and other institutional investors,










—


for AMEOS: operators of acute general and acute psychiatric hospitals as well as long-term elderly care and long-term mental care facilities in Germany and in Austria.














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.6453 — Carlyle/Dr. Paeger/Quadriga Capital IV/AMEOS, 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 C-420/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH (Placing on the market of biocidal products — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Concept of ‘biocidal products’ — Product causing flocculation of harmful organisms without destroying or deterring them or rendering them harmless)
Date: 2012-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, marketing, nuisance








C_2012118EN.01000302.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH
(Case C-420/10) (1)

(Placing on the market of biocidal products - Directive 98/8/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Concept of ‘biocidal products’ - Product causing flocculation of harmful organisms without destroying or deterring them or rendering them harmless)
2012/C 118/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Söll GmbH

Defendant: Tetra GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Classification, as a ‘biocidal product’, of a product causing flocculation of harmful organisms, without destroying them, deterring them or rendering them harmless — Anti-algae agent containing the substance aluminium chlorohydrate — Concept of ‘biocidal product’

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘biocidal products’ set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as including even products which act only by indirect means on the target harmful organisms, so long as they contain one or more active substances provoking a chemical or biological action which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms.


(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010