do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-219/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2012 — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, electrical energy, electricity supply, solar energy








C_2012243EN.01000302.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2012 — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz
(Case C-219/12)
2012/C 243/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant: Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

Interested party: Thomas Fuchs

Question referred

Is the operation of a network-connected photovoltaic installation with no independent power storage capability on or adjacent to a privately owned house used for private residential purposes, which is technically designed such that the power generated by the installation is, on a continuing basis, below the total quantity of power privately consumed by the installation operator in the privately owned house, an ‘economic activity’ of the installation operator within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)



(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.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping measure, chemical alcohol, chemical product, import (EU)








C_2012135EN.01002001.xml










9.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/20





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2012/C 135/09
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Dihydromyrcenol


India


Anti-dumping duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 63/2008 (OJ L 23, 26.1.2008, p. 1)


27.1.2013






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012135EN.01001001.xml










9.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/10





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 May 2012
2012/C 135/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3025




JPY


Japanese yen


104,01




DKK


Danish krone


7,4367




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80645




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8885




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2014




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5605




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,133




HUF


Hungarian forint


286,46




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6985




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1905




RON


Romanian leu


4,4043




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2994




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2830




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2968




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1095




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6456




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6234




KRW


South Korean won


1 479,98




ZAR


South African rand


10,2376




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1969




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5075




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 002,59




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9802




PHP


Philippine peso


55,116




RUB


Russian rouble


39,1120




THB


Thai baht


40,378




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5090




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1877




INR


Indian rupee


69,1875






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6525 — SESA/Disa/SAE/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, logistics, merger control, oil industry








C_2012135EN.01002201.xml










9.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/22





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6525 — SESA/Disa/SAE/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 135/11






1.


On 26 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 undertakings Shell España SA (‘SESA’, Spain, ultimately controlled by Royal Dutch Shell (‘Shell’, United Kingdom)) and Disa Corporación Petrolífera SA (‘Disa’, Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Shell Aviation España S.L. (‘SAE’, Spain, currently solely controlled by Shell) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Shell: worldwide exploration, production and sale of oil and natural gas, production and sale of oil products and chemicals, including lubricants and aviation fuels, power generation, and production of energy from renewable sources,










—


for Disa: sale, warehouse, storage and transport logistic services of automotive fuels and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), maritime transport of oil products within Canary Islands, industrial services and construction,










—


for SAE: aviation fuels marketing in Spain.














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.6525 — SESA/Disa/SAE/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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6454 — Limagrain/KWS/Genective JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-foodstuffs, economic concentration, merger control, research and development, seed








C_2012135EN.01002101.xml










9.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/21





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6454 — Limagrain/KWS/Genective JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 135/10






1.


On 25 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 undertakings Vilmorin & Cie SA (‘VCO’, France) controlled by Groupe Limagrain Holding (‘Limagrain’, France) and KWS SAAT AG (‘KWS’, Germany) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of Genective SA (‘Genective’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Limagrain: agro-industrial activities including field seeds, vegetable seeds and cereal products,










—


for VCO: research, breeding, production and sale of seeds to the professional sector,










—


for KWS: research, breeding, production and sales of seed for agricultural crops,










—


for Genective: research and development of pre-commercial events containing one or more transgenic traits and licensing such these events.














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.6454 — Limagrain/KWS/Genective 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’).
Case T-197/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01000902.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/9





Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)
(Case T-197/12)
2012/C 209/15
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;










—


Subsidiary and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark, in colours ‘METRO’, for amongst others services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7585045

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7111974 of the figurative mark in colours ‘GRUPOMETROPOLIS’, for services in class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-195/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, early childhood, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01000901.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/9





Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)
(Case T-195/12)
2012/C 209/14
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nuna International BV (Erp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Alpera Plazas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. (Bremen, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 476/2011-1; and










—


Grant the contested community trade mark application for all the goods designated in the application.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nuna’, for goods in classes 12, 18, 20, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 6239743

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: Community trade mark application No 6218879 of the word mark ‘NANU’; Community trade mark No 6218945 of the word mark ‘NANA’ for goods and services in classes 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34 and 35; Community trade mark No 6217814 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 35; German trade mark No 36647710 of the word mark ‘NANU’; German trade mark No 39804075 of the word mark ‘NANA’; German trade mark No 1054703 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’; International trade mark registration No 557176 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6438 — Saria/Teeuwissen/Jagero II/Quintet/Bioiberica)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural waste, biogas, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, processing industry








C_2012135EN.01000401.xml










9.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6438 — Saria/Teeuwissen/Jagero II/Quintet/Bioiberica)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 135/02
On 10 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 32012M6438. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, aid for restructuring, financial institution, liquidation








C_2012135EN.01000501.xml










9.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/5





Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 135/03






Date of adoption of the decision


22.12.2011




Reference number of the aid


SA.29833 (MC 11/09)




Member State


Belgium




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Extension of the target date of certain divestments by KBC and amendment of restructuring commitments




Type of decision


New decision related to the following Commission decision: MC 11/09




Content


Adaptation of the schedule or conditions for the repayment of State aid, Adaptation of structural requirements: extension of a divestment deadline by less than 12 months




Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Case T-200/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission
Date: 2012-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, abuse of power, equal treatment, invitation to tender, tendering, tourism








C_2012258EN.01002201.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/22





Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission
(Case T-200/12)
2012/C 258/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shannon Free Airport Development Co. Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Contracts and Finance Section of the European Union Delegation to Ukraine, dated 28 February 2012, contested in the present action, given in the framework of tender EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’; as well as subsequent decisions of the same authority and of the director of the DG Development of the European Commission;










—


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 an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to state reasons, as:






—


Case-law and legislation impose a duty on the defendant to elaborate on the advantages of the selected tender clearly, instead of merely contesting the evidence the applicant brings forward; a good administration has to examine the truth of it and address the allegations correctly, all the more so when various aggravating factors intensify this requirement.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to respect the applicable procedure, as:






—


The evaluation procedure the Evaluation Committee was to follow was vitiated by irregularities, of which the defendant was aware and did not take into account prior to publishing the results. Thus, the subsequent decisions are unlawful, to the extent that they are based on the result of these irregularities.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment and misuse of power, as:






—


The illegal procedure was only applied in the case of the consortium the applicant was part of, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. It also appears that the sole purpose of the illegal procedure was to eliminate the applicant’s consortium from the first place in the evaluation list.