do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7034 — Triton/AE Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, investment company, merger control, security services








C_2013277EN.01001601.xml










26.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7034 — Triton/AE Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 277/13






1.


On 19 September 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Anton MidCo Sàrl, an acquisition vehicle that is ultimately controlled by Triton Managers IV Limited and TFF IV Limited (‘Triton’, Jersey), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Alpine Energie Holding AG (‘Alpine Energie’, Austria) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Triton: private equity firm focused on investing in medium-sized businesses in a variety of sectors. One of the portfolio companies of Triton — Infratek ASA — is a supplier of security solutions and critical infrastructure with a focus on services for the electricity grid,










—


for Alpine Energie: holding company of Alpine Energy group, active in providing infrastructure systems in the segments of energy generation, energy transport and energy-technical applications.














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.7034 — Triton/AE Holding, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




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-609/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Concept — Evidence — Sworn statement — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — General Court’s powers of review — Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, piping, proof, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01001501.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/15





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-609/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Concept - Evidence - Sworn statement - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - General Court’s powers of review - Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)
2013/C 344/23
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-427/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;










3.


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






(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
Case C-610/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Evidence — Sworn statement — Burden of proof — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15, 51 and 76 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 40(5))
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, piping, proof, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01001502.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/15





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-610/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Evidence - Sworn statement - Burden of proof - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15, 51 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 40(5))
2013/C 344/24
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it granted the application for revocation of the CENTROTHERM mark — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM);










2.


Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4);










3.


Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.






(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of 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: 2013-09-26
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, common market, control of State aid, industrial research, innovation, large business, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2013277EN.01000301.xml










26.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/3





Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of 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))
2013/C 277/03
PART I







Aid No


GBER 10/13/R&D




EFTA State


Norway




Granting authority


Name


The Research Council of Norway




Address







PO Box 2700 St. Hanshaugen




0131 Oslo




NORWAY








Webpage


http://www.forskningsradet.no




Title of the aid measure


Large-scale, industry-relevant Researcher Projects in biotechnology




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


Government white paper on biotechnology (‘Nasjonal strategi for bioteknologi 2010-2011’), the programme plan for BIOTEK2021, Call for proposals for Large-scale, industry-relevant researcher projects in biotechnology




Web link to the full text of the aid measure


http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Funding/BIOTEK2021/1253977220666/p1184150364108?progId=1253973230625&visAktive=false




Type of measure


Scheme


X




Duration


Scheme


1.1.2013 to 31.12.2016




Economic sector(s) concerned


Limited to specific sectors — Please specify in accordance with NACE Rev. 2.


Biotechnology, NACE 72.110




Type of beneficiary


SME


X




Large enterprises


X




Budget


Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme


NOK 50 million




However, only a fraction (approximately NOK 5 million) constitutes State aid as most of the funding will be spent by research organisations for the pursuit of non-economic activities.




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 research, development and innovation
(Articles 30-37)


Aid for research and development projects
(Article 31)


Industrial research
(Article 31(2)(b))


50 %


X
Case T-531/13: Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan/OHIM — Kik Textilien und Non-Food (KICKS)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013359EN.01001602.xml










7.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/16





Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan/OHIM — Kik Textilien und Non-Food (KICKS)
(Case T-531/13)
2013/C 359/32
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, or alternatively, if applicable, an intervening party to do so;










—


authorise the registration of the contested application No. 924 6166 in its entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘KICKS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 14, 21 and 35 — application No 9246166

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German and international word mark ‘kik’ for services in class 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition for the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-193/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ )
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Poland, VAT, basis of tax assessment, infringement of EU law, invoicing, tax relief, tax system, travel agency, traveller








C_2013344EN.01000501.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-193/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)
2013/C 344/04
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 204, 09.07.2011.
Case C-157/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, ruling








C_2013344EN.01002602.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/26





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA
(Case C-157/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(3) and (4) - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)
2013/C 344/44
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation in which that decision is irreconcilable with another judgment given previously in the same Member State between the same parties, with the same subject matter and same cause of action

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.


(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
Case T-522/13: Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013352EN.01002002.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/20





Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)
(Case T-522/13)
2013/C 352/38
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo, SA (Paris, France)

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 July 2013 given in Case R 1363/2012-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO ESTATE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 43 — International Registration No W 1 016 724

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: The word mark ‘KENZO’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark No 720 706

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.
Case T-164/10: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission (Approximation of laws — Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms — Authorisation procedure for placing on the market — Failure by the Commission to submit a draft decision to the Council — Action for failure to act)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental impact, genetically modified organism, market approval, proposal (EU)








C_2013336EN.01001602.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/16





Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission
(Case T-164/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Authorisation procedure for placing on the market - Failure by the Commission to submit a draft decision to the Council - Action for failure to act)
2013/C 336/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and T. Müller Ibold, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, N. Yerrell and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a declaration under Article 265 TFEU that, by failing to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) and by failing to take all other measures that may, depending on the development of the decision-making procedure, be necessary to ensure the adoption of the decision referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 of the European Parliament and the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1), the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC by failing to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013277EN.01000201.xml










26.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 September 2013
2013/C 277/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3504




JPY


Japanese yen


133,14




DKK


Danish krone


7,4577




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84165




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6881




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2304




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1330




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,880




HUF


Hungarian forint


300,12




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7026




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2165




RON


Romanian leu


4,4645




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7087




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4430




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3924




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4710




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6413




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6943




KRW


South Korean won


1 454,52




ZAR


South African rand


13,3655




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2650




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6160




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 497,56




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3512




PHP


Philippine peso


58,610




RUB


Russian rouble


43,2625




THB


Thai baht


42,251




BRL


Brazilian real


2,9852




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5292




INR


Indian rupee


84,4150






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.