do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-188/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Peter Hehenberger v Republik Österreich (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 817/2004 — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Checks — Beneficiary of agricultural aid — Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out — National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years — Whether compatible)
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, State aid, agri-environmental plan, aid recipient, control of State aid








C_2012200EN.01000302.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/3





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Peter Hehenberger v Republik Österreich
(Case C-188/11) (1)

(Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 817/2004 - Financial support for agri-environmental production methods - Checks - Beneficiary of agricultural aid - Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out - National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years - Whether compatible)
2012/C 200/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of said Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) — Checks and penalties — Legislation of a Member State requiring, in the event that a recipient of agricultural support prevents a check, repayment of all support received over a period of 5 years — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999, does not preclude national rules which provide that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the support already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure must be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years.


(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6583 — KIB/BDMI/Bidmanagement) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, means of communication, merger control, retail trade, software








C_2012146EN.01001001.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6583 — KIB/BDMI/Bidmanagement)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 146/07






1.


On 15 May 2012 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking K-Invest Beteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG, which belongs to the Klingel group (‘Klingel’, Germany), and the undertaking Bertelsmann Digital Media Investments SA (Luxembourg), which is controlled by Bertelsmann AG (‘Bertelsmann’, Germany), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Bidmanagement GmbH (‘Bidmanagement’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Klingel: mail order and retail business, especially in the areas of women’s and men’s fashion, shoes, jewellery and interior decoration,










—


Bertelsmann: radio and television, book and magazine publishing, book and media clubs, other media and communications services,










—


Bidmanagement: services in the software sector: optimisation of online advertising campaigns.














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.6583 — KIB/BDMI/Bidmanagement, 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-259/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Plovdiv (Bulgaria), lodged on 24 May 2012 — Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite — Plovdiv v ‘RODOPI-М 91’ OOD
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, interest, invoicing








C_2012243EN.01000703.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Plovdiv (Bulgaria), lodged on 24 May 2012 — Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite — Plovdiv v ‘RODOPI-М 91’ OOD
(Case C-259/12)
2012/C 243/13
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Plovdiv

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite — Plovdiv

Respondent:‘RODOPI-М 91’ OOD

Questions referred







1.1.


Does the principle of VAT neutrality permit a Member State to impose a fine for failure to show cancellation of an invoice on time even though that cancellation is later shown in the accounts and the party concerned has paid the VAT resulting from cancellation plus the interest thereon?










1.2.


Are the following circumstances of significance in connection with the first question:






—


The period within which cancellation of an invoice should supposedly be shown is 14 days from the end of the calendar month in which the cancellation takes place;










—


Cancellation of the invoice was in fact shown one month after the end of the period within which cancellation should supposedly have taken place;










—


The VAT owed plus interest thereon was forwarded to the Treasury?














2.


Do Articles 242 and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) permit the Member States to impose a fine on taxpayers who have allegedly failed to fulfil on time their duty to show circumstances in their accounts that are of significance to the calculation of VAT where that fine amounts to the VAT not paid on time if that default is later remedied and the VAT owed is paid in full plus interest thereon?










3.


Is significance to be attributed to the fact that the Treasury has not been adversely affected as the party concerned later showed cancellation of the invoice and paid all of the VAT plus interest thereon?










4.


Does the imposition of a fine in the full amount of VAT already paid plus interest thereon contravene the principle of proportionality?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, Norway, State aid, care of people with disabilities, control of State aid, employment aid, large business, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2012146EN.01000701.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/7





Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
2012/C 146/05
PART I








Aid No


GBER 5/12/EMP




EFTA State


Norway




Granting authority


Name


The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration




Address







Postboks 5 St. Olavs plass




0130 Oslo




NORWAY








Webpage


http://www.nav.no




Title of the aid measure


(Forskrift om forsøk med tilretteleggingstilskudd for rekruttering av arbeidssøkere med nedsatt arbeidsevne)




National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)


Regulation (EC) No 1362/2011




Web link to the full text of the aid measure


http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/ad/ad-20111212-1362.html




Type of measure


Scheme


X




Duration


Scheme


From 1.1.2012 until 31.12.2013




Economic sector(s) concerned


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid


X




Type of beneficiary


SME


X




Large enterprises


X




Budget


Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme


Approximately NOK 25 million




Aid instrument (Article 5)


Grant


X




PART II








General objectives (list)


Objectives (list)


Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK


SME — bonuses in %




Aid for disadvantaged and disabled workers (Articles 40-42)


Aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged workers in the form of wage subsidies (Article 40)


… %


 




Aid for the employment of disabled workers in the form of wage subsidies (Article 41)


… %


 




Aid for compensating the additional costs of employing disabled workers (Article 42)


Documented costs for adoption, for up to 12 weeks and maximum 36 weeks
Case T-152/11: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark MAD — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001503.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/15





Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (MAD)
(Case T-152/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark MAD - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 200/31
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 449/2009-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
Case T-169/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TORO XL — Early Community figurative mark XL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001201.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/12





Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)
(Case T-169/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TORO XL - Early Community figurative mark XL - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No likelihood of confusion)
2012/C 200/22
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa Maria, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA (Quetzal Tenango, Guatemala)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 223/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA and Grupo Osborne, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2010 (Case R 223/2009-2).










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), publishing








C_2012146EN.01000901.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/9





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
2012/C 146/06
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


EPSO/AST/119/12 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Czech as their main language (CS)










 


EPSO/AST/120/12 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Danish as their main language (DA)




The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 146 A of 24 May 2012 in Czech and Danish only.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu
Case C-196/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ — Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive element — Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, motor car, simulation, sport, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01000401.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd
(Case C-196/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ - Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive element - Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark - Likelihood of confusion)
2012/C 200/06
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Formula One Licensing BV (represented by: K. Sandberg and B. Klingberg, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Global Sports Media Ltd (represented by: T. de Haan, avocet)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09 (Formula One Licensing v OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of Community and national word and figurative marks ‘F1’, ‘F1 Formula 1’, ‘F1 Racing Simulation’, ‘F1 Pole Position’, and ‘F1 Pit Stop Café’, in respect of goods and services in Classes 16, 38, and 41, against Decision R 7/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 October 2008, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division refusing the registration of the figurative mark ‘F1-Live’, for goods and services in Classes 16, 38, and 41, in the context of the applicant’s opposition — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b), and Article 8(5), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09 Formula One Licensing v OHIM — Global Sports Media (F1-LIVE);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
Information concerning a modification of Appendix IV to the Protocol on wine labelling as referred to in Article 8(2) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: United States, labelling, trade agreement (EU), wine








L_2012134EN.01000501.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 134/5







Information concerning a modification of Appendix IV to the Protocol on wine labelling as referred to in Article 8(2) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine

By letter dated 16 May 2012, the Commission has confirmed to the United States of America that the Union agrees with the modifications of Appendix IV to the Protocol on wine labelling (1).
In accordance with Article 11(5) of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine the modifications take effect on 1 June 2012.


(1)  
            OJ L 87, 24.3.2006, p. 65.
Case T-314/11: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — Fortress Participations v OHIM — FIG and Fortress Investment Group (FORTRESS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001603.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/16





Order of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — Fortress Participations v OHIM — FIG and Fortress Investment Group (FORTRESS)
(Case T-314/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 200/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fortress Participations BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented, initially, by: L.J. van de Braak, avocat, B. Ladas, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister, then, by: L.J. van de Braak, S. Malynicz, R. Black, Solicitor, and V. Baxter, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: FIG LLC (New York, United States); and Fortress Investment Group (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Gray and R. Mallinson, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2011 (Case R 354/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between FIG LLC and Fortress Investment Group (UK), on the one hand, and Fortress Participations BV, on the other.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The interveners are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-555/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — JBF RAK v Council (Subsidies — Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates — Definitive countervailing duty and definite collection of provisional duty — Articles 11(8), 15(1) and 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2012-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, plastics








C_2012200EN.01001303.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/13





Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — JBF RAK v Council
(Case T-555/10) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates - Definitive countervailing duty and definite collection of provisional duty - Articles 11(8), 15(1) and 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 - Principle of sound administration)
2012/C 200/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JBF RAK LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent, G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, M. França and G. Luengo, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders JBF RAK LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.