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: 2014-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, processing industry








C_2014011EN.01000101.xml










15.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 11/01







Date of adoption of the decision


30.9.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.36896 (13/N)




Member State


Slovenia




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Rescue aid for Mariborska Livarna Maribor (‘MLM d.d.’) — Slovenia




Legal basis


—




Type of measure


Individual aid


Mariborska Livarna Maribor (MLM d.d.)




Objective


Rescuing firms in difficulty




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 5,1 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


—




Economic sectors


Manufacturing




Name and address of the granting authority







Slovenian Ministry of Finance




Župančičeva 3




SI-1001 Ljubljana




SLOVENIJA








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
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7142 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/International Elevator & Equipment) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distribution business, economic concentration, electrical industry, electronics industry, lift, maintenance, merger control








C_2014011EN.01000301.xml










15.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7142 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/International Elevator & Equipment)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 11/03






1.


On 8 January 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Mitsubishi Corporation (‘MC’, Japan) and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (‘MELCO’, Japan) acquire within the meaning of the article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of International Elevator & Equipment Inc. (‘IEE’, the Philippines) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for MC: general trading company active in various industries including energy, metals, machinery, chemicals, food and general merchandise,










—


for MELCO: manufacture and sale of electric and electronic equipment used in energy and electric systems, industrial automation, information and communication systems, electronic devices, and home appliances,










—


for IEE: active in the supply, installation, maintenance and repair of elevators, escalators and moving walkways as well as the supply of air conditioners, diesel generator sets and hand dryers in the Philippines.














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.7142 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/International Elevator & Equipment, 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 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2014 on the draft Council decision repealing Decision 2007/124/EC, Euratom establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific Programme ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks’ (15187/2013 — C7-0418/2013 — 2013/0281(APP))
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU police cooperation, financial aid, fund (EU), prevention of delinquency, terrorism








C_2016482EN.01018401.xml










23.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/184





P7_TA(2014)0019
Repeal of Council Decision 2007/124/EC, Euratom ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2014 on the draft Council decision repealing Decision 2007/124/EC, Euratom establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific Programme ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks’ (15187/2013 — C7-0418/2013 — 2013/0281(APP))
(Special legislative procedure — consent)
(2016/C 482/34)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (15187/2013),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 203 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (C7-0418/2013),










—


having regard to Rules 81(1) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0432/2013),












1.


Consents to the draft Council decision;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2014 on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation (13152/2013 — C7-0370/2013 — 2013/0282(NLE))
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Russia, cooperation agreement (EU), renewal of an agreement, scientific cooperation, technical cooperation, technology








C_2016482EN.01018501.xml










23.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/185





P7_TA(2014)0020
Renewal of the EU-Russia agreement on cooperation in science and technology ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2014 on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation (13152/2013 — C7-0370/2013 — 2013/0282(NLE))
(Consent)
(2016/C 482/35)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation (13152/2013),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2000/742/EC of 16 November 2000 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation,










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0370/2013),










—


having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) and Rule 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets (A7-0473/2013),












1.


Consents to renewal of the Agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation.
Case T-95/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2014 — Stols v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the interested party to grade AST 11 — Comparison of merits — Review by the court of the manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, promotion, staff assessment








C_2014052EN.01003401.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/34





Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2014 — Stols v Council
(Case T-95/12) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the interested party to grade AST 11 - Comparison of merits - Review by the court of the manifest error of assessment)
2014/C 52/61
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) on 13 December 2011 in Case F-51/08 RENV, not yet published, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Willem Stols to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
Case T-44/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU initiative, European citizenship, participatory democracy, petition, power of initiative








C_2014093EN.01002602.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/26





Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission
(Case T-44/14)
2014/C 93/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Galązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens' Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and Independence is a fundamental right!’, (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer and A. Woods, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014011EN.01000201.xml










15.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 January 2014
2014/C 11/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3667




JPY


Japanese yen


141,62




DKK


Danish krone


7,4620




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83145




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8198




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2334




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3340




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,409




HUF


Hungarian forint


299,80




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1507




RON


Romanian leu


4,5280




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9979




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5189




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4883




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5978




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6243




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7324




KRW


South Korean won


1 449,27




ZAR


South African rand


14,8155




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2587




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6255




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 189,21




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4607




PHP


Philippine peso


61,199




RUB


Russian rouble


45,5622




THB


Thai baht


44,723




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2284




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9154




INR


Indian rupee


84,0320






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-15/14 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, extraction of oil, gas, reimbursement of aid








C_2014061EN.01000602.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/6





Appeal brought on 15 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission
(Case C-15/14 P)
2014/C 61/10
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Talabér-Ritz, agents)

Other party to the proceedings: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission; and










—


reject the application to annul Commission Decision C(2010) 3553 final of 9 June 2010 in Case C-1/09 (ex NN-69/2008) on the State aid implemented by Hungary in favour of MOL Nyrt (1);










—


order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;
alternatively,










—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside because several aspects of that judgment misinterpret or misapply the concept of selectivity.
First, the judgment misapplies the case-law on selectivity in relation to measures for which the national authorities have discretion on the treatment they accord to undertakings.
Second, the General Court incorrectly states the law in considering that the presence of objective criteria necessarily excludes the presence of selectivity.
Third, the judgment erroneously links the presence of selectivity to the intention of the Member State to shield one or more operators from a new regime of fees and thereby overlooked the requirement that the presence of State aid rests on the effects of the measure under examination.
Fourth, the considerations set out in the judgment regarding the ‘subsequent modification of the conditions external to [an agreement preserving a particular level of fees]’ could not be relevant to the case in hand since the subsequent modification of the conditions external to the agreement examined by the Commission was a change in a legislative regime.


(1)  OJ L 34, p. 55.
Case T-41/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Advertising articles)
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014129EN.01002201.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/22






Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Advertising articles)
(Case T-41/14)
(2014/C 129/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra'anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clapbanner Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 22 October 2013 given in Case R 981/2012-3;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘advertising articles’ — registered under No 1684325-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design lacked novelty (Article 5 CDR) and individual character (Article 6 CDR)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 CDR.
Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France (Temporary Agent — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 ( OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014 )
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union Agency for Railways, administrator, job vacancy, managing director, servant (EU)








CA2014011EN.01000101.xml










15.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 11/1





Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France
(Temporary Agent — grade AD 14)
COM/2014/10345

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 6 A of 10 January 2014
)

(2014/C 11 A/01)
On page 4, under ‘Application Procedure’, the link in the third paragraph should read as follows:

‘https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/’.
Case C-14/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 January 2014 — X; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, deduction at source, double taxation, equal treatment, residence permit, shareholding, tax on income








C_2014129EN.01000902.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 January 2014 — X; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-14/14)
(2014/C 129/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: X

Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case such as the present, in which dividend tax is withheld on a dividend payment by the source State, be extended to the income tax payable on the dividend income, against which, in the case of residents, the dividend tax is set off?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, in the assessment as to whether the effective tax burden for a non-resident is heavier than the tax burden for a resident, should a comparison be made between the Netherlands dividend tax withheld in respect of the non-resident and the Netherlands income tax payable by a resident, calculated in respect of the flat-rate income which, in the year in which the dividends were received, is attributable to the total holding of investment shares in Netherlands companies, or does European Union law require that a different standard of comparison be taken into account? Must the tax-free capital allowance which applies to residents also be taken into account when making that comparison, and, if so, to what extent (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 October 2013 in Case C-181/12 Welte, V-N 2013/51.20.1)?










3.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned makes provision for a tax reduction in the State of residence by means of the setting-off of the withholding tax levied at source and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question the tax reduction granted by the State of residence, by levying tax only on the net dividend received, offsets in full the discriminatory portion of the withholding tax levied at source?