do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
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: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, means of communication








C_2013151EN.01000401.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/4





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 151/05






Date of adoption of the decision


25.7.2012




Reference number of State Aid


SA.33659 (11/NN)




Member State


Denmark




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Digital Audio Broadcasting-sendenet i Danmark




Legal basis








 


Bekendtgørelse nr. 5 af 5. januar 2011 om udbud af den fjerde FM-kanal










 


Bekendtgørelse nr. 393 af 2. maj 2006 om Radio- og tv-nævnets udbud af den femte, jordbaserede FM-channel










 


Bekendtgørelse nr. 1660 af 14. december 2006 om ændring af bekendtgørelse ændring af bekendtgørelse om Radio- og tv-nævnets udbud af den femte jordbaserede FM-kanal










 


Bekendtgørelse nr. 148 af 9. februar 2010 om genudbud af den sjette FM kanal










 


Bekendtgørelse om Radio- og tv-nævnets udbud af de ledige sendemuligheder i DAB-blok 2








Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Sectoral development




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: DKK 99 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


1.1.2005-31.12.2015




Economic sectors


Media




Name and address of the granting authority







Radio & Television Board




H.C. Andersens Boulevard 2




1533 København V




DANMARK








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
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Latvia, State aid, agricultural holding, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, investment aid, young farmer








C_2013151EN.01000101.xml










30.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)
2013/C 151/01







Date of adoption of the decision


22.4.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.35910 (12/N)




Member State


Latvia




Region


Latvia


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Grozījumi atbalsta shēmā “Atbalsts kredītgarantiju veidā”




Legal basis








1.


Ministru kabineta 2009. gada 7. jūlija noteikumos Nr. 746 “Lauksaimniecības un lauku attīstības kredītu garantēšanas kārtība”;










2.


Ministru kabineta noteikumu projekts “Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2009. gada 7. jūlija noteikumos Nr. 746 “Lauksaimniecības un lauku attīstības kredītu garantēšanas kārtība” ”.








Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Investment in processing and marketing, Investments in agricultural holdings, Setting up of young farmers




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget








 


Overall budget: LVL 250 million










 


Annual budget: LVL 50 million








Intensity


80 %




Duration (period)


Until 30.12.2013




Economic sectors


Agriculture, forestry and fishing




Name and address of the granting authority







Lauku attīstības fonds




Republikas laukums 2




Rīga, LV-1981




LATVIJA








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 C-270/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/24/EC — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, administrative sanction, data recording, disclosure of information, information technology, infringement of EU law, provision of services








C_2013225EN.01000602.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-270/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Imposition of a lump sum payment)
2013/C 225/09
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and D. Maidani and by F. Coudert, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 260 TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden — Application for a penalty to be imposed

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden [2010] ECR I-14 concerning the failure to transpose into Swedish law Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, and by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the European Commission, to the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
Case T-115/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Roca — Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01007503.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/75





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)
(Case T-115/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Roca - Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 225/168
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waldhauser, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Lenz, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2012 (Case R 1907/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roca Sanitario, SA and Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
Case T-218/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SERVICEPOINT — Earlier Community marks ServicePoint and earlier national marks — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, postal service, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01006301.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/63





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT)
(Case T-218/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SERVICEPOINT - Earlier Community marks ServicePoint and earlier national marks - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 225/140
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DHL International (Bonn, Germany) (represented: initially by K.-U. Jonas and J. Bogatz, then M. Viefhues, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Service Point Solutions, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented: initially by E. Zamora Martinez, then C. Osterrieth, T. Schmitz and A. Doepner, and finally I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2012 (Case R 62/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Service Point Solutions, SA and SHL Operations BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders DHL International GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Case C-106/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, administrative formalities, interpretation of the law, real property, sale








C_2013225EN.01005403.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/54





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza
(Case C-106/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
2013/C 225/101
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Francesco Fierro, Fabiana Marmorale

Defendants: Edoardo Ronchi, Cosimo Scocozza

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Articles 17 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right to property — National legislation allowing local administrative authorities to prohibit an owner from selling a part of his building without prior authorisation

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013.
Case T-396/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ultrafilter international — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Abuse of rights)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01007101.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/71





Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)
(Case T-396/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ultrafilter international - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Abuse of rights)
2013/C 225/156
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz and M. Teworte-Vey, lawyers)

Re:

Action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between ultra air GmbH and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by ultra air GmbH;










3.


Orders Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
Case C-70/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for methacrylates — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Statement of reasons — Unlimited jurisdiction — General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Proportionality of the fine)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, exchange of information, fine, jurisdiction, plastics industry, price agreement, principle of proportionality








C_2013225EN.01002602.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/26





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-70/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for methacrylates - Duration of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Statement of reasons - Unlimited jurisdiction - General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment - Proportionality of the fine)
2013/C 225/42
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH (represented by: F. Wijckmans and M. Visser, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 in Case T-208/06 Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission annulling in part Decision C(2006) 2098 final of the Commission of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), which concerned a complex of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates industry consisting in agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements, exchanging information and participating in discussions to facilitate the infringement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to pay the costs of these proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Case T-296/13: Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013226EN.01002101.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/21





Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
(Case T-296/13)
(2013/C 226/27)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2013 in Case R 386/2012-2 due to incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘MARINE BLEU’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 6 637 193

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blufin SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUMARINE’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94
Case C-299/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, securities, tax on capital








C_2013226EN.01000501.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad
(Case C-299/13)
(2013/C 226/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Isabelle Gielen

Defendant: Ministerraad

Question referred

Is Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital to be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion — prescribed by law — of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities, and, if so, can such a tax be justified on the basis of Article 6 of that directive?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.
Case C-14/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v Three-N-Products Private Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2013-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01004301.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/43





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v Three-N-Products Private Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-14/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
2013/C 225/73
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (represented by: C. Jäger, Rechtsanwältin), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10 THREE-N-PRODUCTS PRIVATE v OHIM — SHAH (AYUURI NATURAL), by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 June 2010 in Case R 1005/2009-4 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the application for registration of the word mark ‘AYUURI NATURAL’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative and word marks including the word element ‘AYUR’ in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah shall pay the costs.










3.


The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.