do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-195/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle, Belgium lodged on 26 April 2012 — I.B.V & Cie SA (Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie SA) v Walloon Region
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bioenergy, biomass, wood residue








C_2012200EN.01000701.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle, Belgium lodged on 26 April 2012 — I.B.V & Cie SA (Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie SA) v Walloon Region
(Case C-195/12)
2012/C 200/12
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour Constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage)

Parties to the main proceedings


Original claimant: I.B.V & Cie SA (Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie SA)

Original defendant: Walloon Region

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7 of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC, (1) in conjunction if appropriate with Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (2) and with Article 22 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (3) be interpreted, in the light of the general principle of equal treatment, of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,






(a)


as applying only to high-efficiency cogeneration plants, within the meaning of Annex III to the directive;










(b)


as requiring, permitting or prohibiting the availability of a support measure of the kind contained in Article 38(3) of the Walloon Region Decree of 12 April 2001 on the organisation of the regional electricity market to all cogeneration plants principally exploiting biomass and meeting the conditions laid down by that article, with the exception of cogeneration plants principally exploiting wood or wood waste?














2.


Would the answer be different if the cogeneration plant principally exploits only wood or, on the contrary, only wood waste?






(1)  OJ L 52, p. 50.

(2)  OJ L 283, p. 33.

(3)  OJ L 140, p. 16.
Case T-186/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, communications industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001802.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/18





Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)
(Case T-186/12)
2012/C 200/38
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: Maquet SAS (Ardon, France)

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 13 February 2012 in Case R 67/2011-4 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maquet SAS

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘LUCEA LED’ for goods in Class 10

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LUCEO’ for goods in Classes 10, 12 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was allowed and the opposition was rejected
Pleas in law:






—


infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009,










—


infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009,










—


infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009,










—


infringement of Rule 6(4) of implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95 in conjunction with decision No EX-05-5 of the President of OHIM,










—


infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Joined Cases C-578/10 to C-580/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.A.C. van Putten (C-578/10), P. Mook (C-579/10), G. Frank (C-580/10) (Articles 18 EC and 56 EC — Motor vehicles — Use in a Member State of a borrowed private motor vehicle which is registered in another Member State — Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State on its first use on the national road network)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: legal domicile, motor car, road network, tax relief, vehicle registration, vehicle tax








C_2012174EN.01001001.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.A.C. van Putten (C-578/10), P. Mook (C-579/10), G. Frank (C-580/10)
(Joined Cases C-578/10 to C-580/10) (1)

(Articles 18 EC and 56 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in a Member State of a borrowed private motor vehicle which is registered in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State on its first use on the national road network)
2012/C 174/13
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendants: L.A.C. van Putten (C-578/10), P. Mook (C-579/10), G. Frank (C-580/10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU) — National rule imposing a registration tax on the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Liability to tax of a person residing in the Member State in question who has borrowed a vehicle registered in another Member State from a person residing in that State for the purposes of private use for a brief period in the first Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which requires residents who have borrowed a vehicle registered in another Member State from a resident of that State to pay, on first use of that vehicle on the national road network, the full amount of a tax normally due on registration of a vehicle in the first Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use of that vehicle on that road network and without that person being able to invoke a right to exemption or reimbursement where that vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor, in fact, used in that way.


(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
2012/267/EU: Decision No 2/2012 of the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors of 26 April 2012 on the termination of the term of office of the Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: ACP Committee of Ambassadors
Subjects: Centre for the Development of Enterprise, appointment of members








L_2012131EN.01001001.xml










22.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 131/10








            DECISION No 2/2012 OF THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS
         
of 26 April 2012
         
on the termination of the term of office of the Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)
(2012/267/EU)


THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS,

Having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2) and as amended for the second time in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (3), and in particular Article 2(6) of Annex III thereto,


Having regard to Decision No 8/2005 of the ACP-EC Committee of Ambassadors of 20 July 2005 on the Statutes and rules of procedure of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE) (4), and in particular Article 7(6) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Dr Jyoti JEETUN was appointed Deputy Director of the CDE with effect from 1 September 2010 by Decision No 4/2010 of the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors (5), without prejudice to any subsequent decisions that the Committee might have to take, under its prerogatives,












(2)


At a special Board meeting held on 27 September 2011, the CDE Executive Board unanimously recommended terminating the services of both the Director and the Deputy Director,





HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:



Article 1
The mandate of Dr Jyoti JEETUN as Deputy Director of the CDE is hereby terminated with effect from 10 August 2012.


Article 2
With immediate effect, the CDE Executive Board is hereby mandated to take the appropriate measures to ensure proper management of the Centre until a new Deputy Director has been appointed.




Done at Brussels, 26 April 2012.


For the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors


The Chairperson

Shirley SKERRITT-ANDREW
            





(1)  
            OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

(2)  Agreement amending the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27).

(3)  Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (OJ L 287, 4.11.2010, p. 3).

(4)  
            OJ L 66, 8.3.2006, p. 16.

(5)  
            OJ L 145, 11.6.2010, p. 18.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012121EN.01002001.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/20





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 April 2012
2012/C 121/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3206




JPY


Japanese yen


107,35




DKK


Danish krone


7,4399




GBP


Pound sterling


0,81940




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8958




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2018




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5625




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,804




HUF


Hungarian forint


287,83




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6993




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1738




RON


Romanian leu


4,3765




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3417




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2771




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3016




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2468




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6217




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6440




KRW


South Korean won


1 506,66




ZAR


South African rand


10,2555




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3269




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5325




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 149,96




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0408




PHP


Philippine peso


56,314




RUB


Russian rouble


38,7490




THB


Thai baht


40,859




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4784




MXN


Mexican peso


17,3461




INR


Indian rupee


69,3910






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6557 — AGC Glass Europe/Interpane International Glas)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, glass industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry, solar energy








C_2012121EN.01003901.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/39





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6557 — AGC Glass Europe/Interpane International Glas)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 121/11






1.


On 17 April 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 AGC Glass Europe SA, (‘AGC’, Belgium), controlled by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd (‘Asahi’, Japan), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertakings Interpane International Glas GmbH (Germany) and Interpane Glass Holding AG (Switzerland) (together, ‘Interpane’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for AGC: production and processing of flat glass for the building, automotive, solar and specialist industries,










—


for Asahi: glass, electronics, display, chemical, ceramic and other operations,










—


for Interpane: manufacture and processing of architectural glass.














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.6557 — AGC Glass Europe/Interpane International Glas, 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-182/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — HTTS v Council
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, human rights, international sanctions, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012174EN.01002901.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/29





Action brought on 26 April 2012 — HTTS v Council
(Case T-182/12)
2012/C 174/47
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the applicant’s expenses.





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 infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence






—


In the applicant’s submission, the Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the obligation to state reasons by failing to supply sufficient grounds for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Article 23 of the contested regulation.










—


The Council infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by not giving the applicant the opportunity to comment beforehand on its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists and thereby to trigger a review by the Council.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the absence of any basis for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists






—


According to the applicant, the reasons stated by the Council for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists do not support its renewed inclusion and are substantively inaccurate. In particular, the applicant is not controlled by IRISL.










—


The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is based on a manifestly erroneous assessment by the Council of the applicant’s situation and of its activities.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to respect for property






—


In the applicant’s submission, its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists represents unjustified interference with its fundamental right to property as the applicant cannot, given the Council’s inadequate reasoning, understand on what grounds it has been included in the lists of persons affected by the sanctions.










—


The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists represents disproportionate interference with its property rights and is manifestly inappropriate to the fulfilment of the objectives pursued by the contested regulation. In any event, it exceeds that which is necessary for the attainment of those objectives.
Case C-199/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, foreign national, interpretation of the law, protection of minorities, refugee








C_2012217EN.01000702.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X
(Case C-199/12)
2012/C 217/14
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel

Other party: X

Questions referred







1.


Do foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation form a particular social group as referred to in Article 10(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304; ‘the Directive’)?










2.


If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: which homosexual activities fall within the scope of the Directive and, in the case of acts of persecution in respect of those activities and if the other requirements are met, can that lead to the granting of refugee status? That question encompasses the following subquestions:






(a)


Can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to conceal their orientation from everyone in their country of origin in order to avoid persecution?










(b)


If the previous question is to be answered in the negative, can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to exercise restraint, and if so, to what extent, when giving expression to that orientation in their country of origin, in order to avoid persecution? Moreover, can greater restraint be expected of homosexuals than of heterosexuals?










(c)


If, in that regard, a distinction can be made between forms of expression which relate to the core area of the orientation and forms of expression which do not, what should be understood to constitute the core area of the orientation and in what way can it be determined?














3.


Do the criminalisation of homosexual activities and the threat of imprisonment in relation thereto, as set out in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 of Sierra Leone, constitute an act of persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 9(2)(c) of the Directive? If not, under what circumstances would that be the case?
Special Report No 4/2012 ‘Using Structural and Cohesion Funds to co-finance transport infrastructures in seaports: an effective investment?’
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Structural Funds, co-financing, harbour installation, investment, transport infrastructure








C_2012121EN.01002401.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/24





Special Report No 4/2012 ‘Using Structural and Cohesion Funds to co-finance transport infrastructures in seaports: an effective investment?’
2012/C 121/08
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 4/2012 ‘Using Structural and Cohesion Funds to co-finance transport infrastructures in seaports: an effective investment?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case C-307/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01000802.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/8





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-307/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines)
2012/C 258/13
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Deichmann SE shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.