do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, Poland, State aid, competition, control of State aid, cultural promotion, means of communication, postal and telecommunications services, regional development








C_2013023EN.01000101.xml










25.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 23/01






Date of adoption of the decision


23.10.2009




Reference number of State aid


SA.28568 (N 292/09)




Member State


Poland




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Zmiany w programie dofinansowania przez Polski Instytut Sztuki Filmowej przedsięwzięć z zakresu kinematografii




Legal basis








 


Ustawa o kinematografii z dnia 30 czerwca 2006 r.










 


Rozporządzenie Ministra Kultury z dnia 27 października 2005 r. w sprawie udzielania przez Polski Instytut Sztuki Filmowej dofinansowania przedsięwzięć z zakresu kinematografii z późniejszymi zmianami








Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Culture




Form of aid


Direct grant, Soft loan, Guarantee




Budget


Annual budget: PLN 100 million




Intensity


50 %




Duration (period)


From 16.5.2006




Economic sectors


Media




Name and address of the granting authority







Polski Instytut Sztuki Filmowej




ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 21/23




00-071 Warszawa




POLSKA/POLAND








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/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm






Date of adoption of the decision


30.11.2012




Reference number of State aid


SA.33641 (11/N)




Member State


Greece




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN)/Fibre to the Home (FTTH) Greece




Legal basis








1.


Act 3389/2005 ‘Partnerships between the public and private sectors’.










2.


Act 3614/2007 ‘National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013’.










3.


Common Ministerial Decision No 2201 (FEK 638/B/13.5.2010) ‘Assignment of responsibilities of the Special Secretariat of OP “Rural Development” to the Special Secretariat of OP “Digital Convergence”’








Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Sectoral development, Regional development




Form of aid


Ad hoc contracts




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 75 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2015




Economic sectors


Post and telecommunications




Name and address of the granting authority







Managing Authority of O.P. ‘Digital Convergence’




23-25 Lekka Str.




105 62 Athens




GREECE








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/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency








C_2013023EN.01001001.xml










25.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/10





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
2013/C 23/06




National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Slovenia

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.
Issuing country: Slovenia
Subject of commemoration: The 800th anniversary of visits to Postojna Cave
Description of the design: The central image of the coin is a stylised spiral, which at the left side of the coin begins with inscription ‘POSTOJNSKA JAMA • 1213–2013 • SLOVENIJA’ and ends with two stylised speleothems.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.
Number of coins to be issued: 1 million
Date of issue: February 2013


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case T-50/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013086EN.01002601.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/26





Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)
(Case T-50/13)
2013/C 86/43
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Müller (Ulm, Germany)

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 14 November 2012 in Case R 474/2012-4;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘VOODOO’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 5 832 464

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Andreas Müller

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6717 — Whirlpool/Alno)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, household electrical appliance, merger control








C_2013023EN.01000802.xml










25.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/8





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6717 — Whirlpool/Alno)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 23/04
On 19 November 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 32012M6717. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, chemical alcohol, chemical product, import (EU), originating product








C_2013023EN.01001101.xml










25.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/11





Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2013/C 23/07
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.
This notice is published in accordance with 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 (2).









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 C 135, 9.5.2012, p. 20.

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-39/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01002101.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/21





Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)
(Case T-39/13)
2013/C 101/45
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Ełk, Poland) (represented by: M. Nentwig and G. Becker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. (Szprotawa, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of November 8, 2012 (case R 1512/2010-3);










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘skirting boards’ — Registered Community design No 70 438-0002

Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on a lack of novelty and individual character pursuant to Article 25 (1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 to 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 63(1) and 62(1) of the Council Regulation No 6/2002.
Case C-38/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Poland, dismissal, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, temporary employment, work contract








C_2013141EN.01000902.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy
(Case C-38/13)
2013/C 141/15
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) clause 1 of the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, clause 4 of the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the general principle of European Union law prohibiting discrimination based on the type of employment contract be construed as meaning that they preclude provisions of national law establishing rules for determining the length of the notice period for the termination of fixed-term employment contracts concluded for a period exceeding six months which are different (less favourable for workers employed on fixed-term contracts) from the rules determining the length of the notice period for the termination of open-ended employment contracts; more specifically, do they preclude provisions of national law (Article 33 of the Law relating to the Labour Code of 26 June 1974 — Dz. U. 1998, No 21, Position 94, as subsequently amended) which, irrespective of a worker’s length of service, establish a fixed two-week notice period for the termination of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period exceeding six months, whereas the length of the notice period for the termination of open-ended contracts is dependent on the worker’s length of service and may range from two weeks to up to three months (Article 36(1) of the Law relating to the Labour Code)?


(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Case C-40/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, interpretation of the law, legal domicile, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax system








C_2013123EN.01000901.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
(Case C-40/13)
2013/C 123/12
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: X AG, X1 Holding GmbH, X2 Holding GmbH, X3 Holding BV, D1 BV, D2 BV, D3 BV

Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

Questions referred







1.


Does denying the appellants the opportunity to have the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and assets of the sister companies X3 Holding, D1 and D2, established in the Netherlands, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC?
In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of X3 Holding, D1 and D2 objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of sister companies, established in the Netherlands, which have not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with their common parent company (-ies), established in the Netherlands, and which therefore, jointly as sister companies, similarly to the appellants, have no access to the fiscal unity regime, or to (ii) the situation of sister companies, established in the Netherlands, which, together with their common parent company (-ies), established in the Netherlands, have elected to form a fiscal unity with their parent company (-ies) and whose activities and assets therefore, in contrast to those of the appellants, are consolidated for tax purposes?










2.


In answering the first sentence of Question 1, does it still make a difference … whether the companies concerned have (i), as in the case of D1 and D2, a common (direct) parent company in the other Member State or (ii), as in the case of, on the one hand, X3 Holding, and, on the other hand, D1 and D2, various (direct) parent companies in the other Member State, with the result that it is only at a higher level — albeit situated in that other Member State — of the group structure that there is a common (indirect) parent company of those various companies?










3.


If and to the extent that the first sentence of Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, can such a restriction then be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, more particularly by the need to preserve tax consistency, including the prevention of unilateral and bilateral double use of losses …?










4.


If and to the extent that Question 3 must be answered in the affirmative, should such a restriction be considered to be proportionate …?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013023EN.01000901.xml










25.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 January 2013
2013/C 23/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3349




JPY


Japanese yen


119,73




DKK


Danish krone


7,4620




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84390




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6879




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2417




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4135




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,597




HUF


Hungarian forint


294,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6985




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1909




RON


Romanian leu


4,3685




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3661




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2737




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3374




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3497




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5881




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6393




KRW


South Korean won


1 426,70




ZAR


South African rand


12,0664




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3069




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5743




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 847,94




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0682




PHP


Philippine peso


54,205




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2012




THB


Thai baht


39,780




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7171




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9385




INR


Indian rupee


71,7580






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6788 — Goldman Sachs/TPG/Barclays/Kew Green)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, financial services, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2013023EN.01000801.xml










25.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/8





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6788 — Goldman Sachs/TPG/Barclays/Kew Green)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 23/03
On 21 January 2013, 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 32013M6788. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.