do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-651/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 5(8) — Concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ — Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, transfer of property








C_2013225EN.01001802.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/18





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV
(Case C-651/11) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 5(8) - Concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ - Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT)
2013/C 225/30
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 5(8) and 6(5) of 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) — Taxable transactions — Transfer of a totality of assets and/or of services (or part thereof) — Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company by a shareholder who, until the date of disposal, supplied services subject to VAT to that company

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5(8) and/or 6(5) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT does not amount to the transfer of a totality of assets or services or part thereof within the meaning of those provisions, irrespective of the fact that the other shareholders transfer all the other shares in that company to the same person at practically the same time and that that disposal is closely linked to management activities carried out for that company.


(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
Case F-141/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Handwritten signature on the fax different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, deadline for payment, pay








C_2013252EN.01005001.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/50





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-141/11) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Handwritten signature on the fax different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
2013/C 252/90
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s claim for payment of arrears if remuneration owing for the period from September to December 2010 and January 2011.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 25.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6919 — KKR/Bregal Fund/Avenia/Cognita)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, private education








C_2013151EN.01001101.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/11





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6919 — KKR/Bregal Fund/Avenia/Cognita)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 151/07
On 17 May 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 32013M6919. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-295/13: Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), invitation to tender








C_2013207EN.01005302.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/53





Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-295/13)
2013/C 207/88
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer, G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10, corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/178/10 and corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/179/10, published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 82 A, of 21 March 2013.










—


As a consequence, annul the corrected notices.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-275/13, Italian Republic v Commission.
Case T-214/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIVINUS — Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum — Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right — Proof)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01006202.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/62





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)
(Case T-214/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DIVINUS - Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum - Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right - Proof)
2013/C 225/139
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft (Bernkastel-Kues, Germany) (represented by: M. Dippelhofer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Renta Siete, SL (Albacete, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft and Renta Siete, SL.

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 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Case T-172/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Be Light — Earlier Community mark BECK’s — relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01007701.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/77





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)
(Case T-172/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Be Light - Earlier Community mark BECK’s - relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2013/C 225/171
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and C. Töbelmann Valeska, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (representanted by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen Cay, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 2258/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG to pay, besides its own costs, those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Case T-74/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) — Decision rejecting a complaint — No European Union interest)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: dominant position, software








C_2013225EN.01006603.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/66





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission
(Case T-74/11) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) - Decision rejecting a complaint - No European Union interest)
2013/C 225/147
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Omnis Group Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, subsequently by A. Biolan and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu and G. Harapcea, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8529 of 1 December 2010 rejecting the complaint (Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft) concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp. on the market for Enterprise Application Software, referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013151EN.01001401.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/14





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 May 2013
2013/C 151/09

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2952




JPY


Japanese yen


130,90




DKK


Danish krone


7,4539




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85695




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6082




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2480




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6000




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,899




HUF


Hungarian forint


288,03




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7013




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2250




RON


Romanian leu


4,3460




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4129




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3447




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3434




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0557




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5912




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6404




KRW


South Korean won


1 466,93




ZAR


South African rand


12,6714




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9384




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5635




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 695,06




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9873




PHP


Philippine peso


54,946




RUB


Russian rouble


40,8379




THB


Thai baht


39,089




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6866




MXN


Mexican peso


16,3671




INR


Indian rupee


72,7580






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6914 — Possehl/Cookson European Precious Metals Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, merger control, precious metal








C_2013151EN.01000302.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6914 — Possehl/Cookson European Precious Metals Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 151/04
On 24 May 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 32013M6914. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6888 — Otsuka/Mitsui/Claris)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2013151EN.01000301.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6888 — Otsuka/Mitsui/Claris)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 151/03
On 17 May 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 32013M6888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-300/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Conselleria de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, air transport, electrical energy, energy transport, interpretation of the law








C_2013226EN.01000502.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Conselleria de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU
(Case C-300/13)
(2013/C 226/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección 1

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Benferri

Defendants: Conselleria de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU

Questions referred







1.


Is the concept of ‘construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km’ in point 20 of Annex I to Directive 85/337, (1) as amended by Directive 97/11, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the only electricity installations it covers are overhead power lines which reach both those thresholds?










2.


Is the concept of ‘… transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables’ in section 3(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, to be interpreted as meaning that the only electrical energy transmission installations it covers are overhead power lines?
If not:










3.


Is the concept of ‘… transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables’ in section 3(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that it covers transformer substations?










4.


Is the concept of ‘… transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables’ in section 3(b) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that it covers transformer substations, although the construction or extension thereof is carried out by means of a project which does not include the construction of an overhead power line?






(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

(2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aquaculture, control of State aid, fishing industry, research and development








C_2013151EN.01000201.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/2





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 151/02







Date of adoption of the decision


16.4.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.33345 (13/NN)




Member State


Netherlands




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Onderzoeksprojecten kleinhandel




Legal basis


Bestemmingsheffingsverordening conform artikel 7 van het Instellingsbesluit Productschap Vis (Staatsblad 2003, nummer 253) gebaseerd op artikel 126, eerste lid, van de Wet op de bedrijfsorganisatie (wet van 27 januari 1950 gepubliceerd in Staatsblad K 22, laatste wijziging is met ingang van 1 januari 2011 in werking getreden welke is gepubliceerd in Staatsblad 2010, 840).




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Research and development




Form of aid


Direct grant, Other — Collectieve activiteiten welke worden gefinancierd uit de opbrengst van deze parafiscale bestemmingsheffing voor onderzoek en ontwikkeling. Financiering van diverse activiteiten ter bevordering van het onderzoek door het verstrekken van een subsidie of door overeenkomsten voor het uitvoeren van projecten inclusief het betalen van uitvoeringskosten waaronder honoraria, overhead en kosten van technische adviseurs.




Budget


—




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


From 3.7.2012




Economic sectors


Fishing and aquaculture




Name and address of the granting authority







Productschap Vis




Postbus 72




2280 AB Rijswijk




NEDERLAND








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
Case T-280/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament (Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action on the petition — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competence, Spain, democracy, fundamental rights, protection of freedoms








C_2013225EN.01006103.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/61





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament
(Case T-280/09) (1)

(Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action on the petition - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)
2013/C 225/137
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: José Carlos Morte Navarro (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. González Buitrón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Gorlitz and P. López-Carceller, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 5 May 2009 to take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 17 December 2008 (petition No 1818/2008).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr José Carlos Morte Navarro to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.