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: 2014-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, innovation, research and development








C_2014002EN.01000401.xml










7.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/4





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 2/02







Date of adoption of the decision


7.10.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.37236 (13/N)




Member State


Germany




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Verlängerung der bestehenden FuEuI-Regelung „Richtlinie zur Förderung von Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation“




Legal basis








—


Landeshaushaltsordnung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern;










—


Verwaltungsvorschriften zur Landeshaushaltsordnung;










—


Operationelles Programm EFRE Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2007-2013;










—


Operationelles Programm des ESF 2007-2013 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern








Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Research and development, Innovation




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget








 


Overall budget: EUR 180 million










 


Annual budget: EUR 30 million








Intensity


80 %




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2014




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Bau und Tourismus Mecklenburg-Vorpommern




J. Stellingstr. 14




19048 Schwerin




DEUTSCHLAND








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-1/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01004901.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/49





Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission
(Case T-1/14)
2014/C 52/94
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SAU (Extramundi, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Extramundi, Spain) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, annul the order to reimburse the State aid; and










—


in the further alternative, quantify that aid in accordance with the investor’s actual net profit.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission (OJ 2013 C 336, p. 29).
In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, since the State aid granted to the investor entailed neither selectivity nor distortion.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU on the basis of the complete failure to state reasons for the exclusion of the ship-owner and/or shipyard as the recipient of the bulk of the aid.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — in connection with the loss of profit — in requiring the investor to reimburse aid which was transferred to a third party.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the Commission, through letters of the Commissioner, and by its inactivity, gave rise to the legitimate appearance that the ‘SEAF’ was lawful.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the imposition of a duty to reimburse aid which was not received/transferred by the investor constitutes confiscation without any legal basis.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since the measures declared to be incompatible were allowed in other proceedings.
Case T-31/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Banco Popular Español v Commission
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, hire purchase, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid








C_2014061EN.01002101.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/21





Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Banco Popular Español v Commission
(Case T-31/14)
2014/C 61/38
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, P. Vidal Martínez, J. López-Quiroga Teijero and G. Canalejo Lasarte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision under Article 263 TFEU in so far as the decision establishes the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2 and 4(1) of the decision, inasmuch as they identify the investors as beneficiaries who have to repay the alleged aid;










—


in the alternative, declare inapplicable the order, in Article 4(1), for recovery of the aid from the investors, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations since recovery may not be ordered from a date earlier than the publication of the decision to initiate [the formal investigation procedure];










—


in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision and declare invalid the methodology for determining the alleged advantage [conferred] to be repaid by the investors;










—


declare non-existent or, in the alternative, annul in part Article 4(1) of the decision relating to the prohibition on ‘transfer[ring] the burden of recovery on other subjects’, inasmuch as this amounts to a decision on the prohibition or presumed invalidity of the contractual clauses on recovery from third parties of the amounts the investors have to repay to the Spanish State; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-29/14 Taetel v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in that case.
Case T-390/12: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2014 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe v OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01005201.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/52





Order of the General Court of 7 January 2014 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe v OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)
(Case T-390/12) (1)

2014/C 52/101
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.12.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,25 % on 1 January 2014 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest








C_2014002EN.01000601.xml










7.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/6





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,25 % on 1 January 2014
Euro exchange rates (2)

6 January 2014
2014/C 2/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3602




JPY


Japanese yen


142,28




DKK


Danish krone


7,4595




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83030




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8687




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2319




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3900




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,485




HUF


Hungarian forint


299,82




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1764




RON


Romanian leu


4,4932




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9837




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5207




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4496




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5479




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6431




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7253




KRW


South Korean won


1 449,01




ZAR


South African rand


14,5732




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2327




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6295




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 546,23




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4681




PHP


Philippine peso


60,653




RUB


Russian rouble


45,2800




THB


Thai baht


44,987




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2400




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8526




INR


Indian rupee


84,6660






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2014 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2014002EN.01000701.xml










7.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/7





Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2014
(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
2014/C 2/05
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this Communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending the Implementing Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 347, 28.11.2013, p. 5.


































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.1.2014


…



0,53




0,53




2,96




0,53




0,71




0,53




0,78




0,53




0,53




0,53




0,53




0,53




2,35




3,45




0,53




0,53




0,69




0,53




0,53




0,53




0,53




2,75




0,53




3,72




1,29




0,53




0,53




0,88
Case T-24/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — NCG Banco v Commission
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, free competition, hire purchase, reimbursement of aid








C_2014061EN.01001902.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/19





Action brought on 7 January 2014 — NCG Banco v Commission
(Case T-24/14)
2014/C 61/35
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: NCG Banco, SA (Corunna, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Council Recommendation of 7 January 2014 on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








C_2014008EN.01000101.xml










11.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/1





COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
of 7 January 2014
on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
2014/C 8/01
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2) thereof,
Having regard to Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:
To appoint Ms Sabine LAUTENSCHLÄGER as member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of 8 years.

Done at Brussels, 7 January 2014.


For the Council


The President

D. KOURKOULAS
Case T-9/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, nut, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01002502.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/25






Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM
(Case T-9/14)
(2014/C 71/47)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Just crunch it …’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 716 711

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1922/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
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: 2014-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, audiovisual programme, control of State aid, culture, film industry








C_2014002EN.01000501.xml










7.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/5





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 2/03







Date of adoption of the decision


14.11.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.37416 (13/N)




Member State


France




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Aides aux nouvelles technologies en production — volet relief (NTP-relief)




Legal basis








 


Décret no 99-130 du 24 février 1999 relatif au soutien financier de l'industrie cinématographique










 


Décret no 95-110 du 2 février 1995 relatif au soutien financier à la production, à la préparation et à la distribution d’œuvres audiovisuelles








Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Culture




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget








 


Overall budget: EUR 20 million










 


Annual budget: EUR 5 million








Intensity


50 %




Duration (period)


1.1.2014-31.12.2017




Economic sectors


Motion picture, video and television programme activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Centre national du cinéma et de l'image animée (CNC)




12 rue de Lübeck




75784 Paris Cedex 16




FRANCE








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-8/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM
Date: 2014-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01002501.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/25






Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM
(Case T-8/14)
(2014/C 71/46)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned:‘Just crunch it …’ word mark for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 713 485.

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1921/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009