do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-125/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2014  — Iron & Smith Kft. v Unilever NV
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, trading margin








C_2014175EN.01002301.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2014 — Iron & Smith Kft. v Unilever NV
(Case C-125/14)
2014/C 175/28
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Iron & Smith Kft.

Other party to the proceedings: Unilever NV

Questions referred







1.


Is it sufficient, for the purposes of proving that a Community trade mark has a reputation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (‘the Directive’), (1) for that mark to have a reputation in one Member State, including where the national trade mark application which has been opposed on the basis of such a reputation has been lodged in a country other than that Member State?










2.


May the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the genuine use of a Community trade mark be applied in the context of the territorial criteria used when examining the reputation of such a mark?










3.


If the proprietor of an earlier Community trade mark has proved that that mark has a reputation in countries other than the Member State in which the national trade mark application has been lodged — which cover a substantial part of the territory of the European Union — may he also be required, notwithstanding that fact, to adduce conclusive proof in relation to that Member State?










4.


If the answer to the previous question is no, bearing in mind the specific features of the internal market, may a mark used intensively in a substantial part of the European Union be unknown to the relevant national consumer and therefore the other condition for the ground precluding registration in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Directive not be met, since there is no likelihood of detriment to, or unfair advantage being taken of, a mark’s repute or distinctive character? If so, what facts must the Community trade mark proprietor prove in order for that second condition to be met?






(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7109 — Deutsche Telekom/GTS)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Europe, Hungary, Poland, Romania, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2014079EN.01000601.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7109 — Deutsche Telekom/GTS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 79/06






1.


On 11 March 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 undertaking Deutsche Telekom AG (‘DT’, Germany), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Consortium 1 Sàrl (‘GTS’, Luxembourg) by way of purchase of shares. The undertaking Carduelis 2 BV and its subsidiary GTS Slovakia, s.r.o., currently belonging to the GTS group, will not be part of the transaction.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for DT: integrated telecommunications group active mainly in Europe,










—


for GTS: infrastructure-based provider of telecommunications services and tailor-made information and communication technology solutions active in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7109 — Deutsche Telekom/GTS, 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 ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case C-127/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 18 March 2014  — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative personnel, bank deposit, credit institution, indemnification








C_2014159EN.01001402.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 18 March 2014 — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija
(Case C-127/14)
2014/C 159/20
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Andrejs Surmačs

Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Questions referred







1.


Must part 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes be interpreted as meaning that the list set out there of persons who must be regarded as linked to the credit institution in question, and who must be refused the right to guaranteed compensation, is exhaustive?










2.


May a person who, according to the description of his position, has the power to plan, coordinate and supervise a branch of the credit institution’s activity or the execution of a function, but not the credit institution’s activity in its entirety, and who is not entitled to give orders or make binding decisions on behalf of other persons be regarded as a manager of a credit institution or as any other of the persons mentioned in part 7 of Annex I to the Directive? Must the nature of that branch of the credit institution’s activity or of that function be taken into account?










3.


Must part 7 of Annex I of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse payment of the guaranteed compensation to a person who, having regard to the rights and obligations set out in the description of his position, cannot be regarded as a director but who has de facto a considerable influence over the credit institution’s directors or the persons personally responsible for that institution? Can merely informal influence, deriving from the authority, skills or knowledge of the person in relation to the credit institution’s activity, be relevant in that context?






(1)  OJ 1994 L 135, p. 1.
2014/168/EU: Council Decision of 18 March 2014 appointing a Slovakian member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, Slovakia, appointment of members








L_2014090EN.01002001.xml










26.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 90/20








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 18 March 2014
         
appointing a Slovakian member of the European Economic and Social Committee
(2014/168/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Slovakian Government,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).












(2)


A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Dušan BARČIK,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Anton SZALAY, President of Slovak Trade Union of Health and Social Services, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 March 2014.


For the Council


The President

E. VENIZELOS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014079EN.01000401.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 March 2014
2014/C 79/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3906




JPY


Japanese yen


141,45




DKK


Danish krone


7,4633




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83675




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8604




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2154




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,2800




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,411




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,30




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2220




RON


Romanian leu


4,5078




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0932




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5311




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5393




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,7981




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6235




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7594




KRW


South Korean won


1 484,94




ZAR


South African rand


14,9197




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5895




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6583




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 702,84




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5570




PHP


Philippine peso


62,081




RUB


Russian rouble


50,7310




THB


Thai baht


44,843




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2720




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3712




INR


Indian rupee


85,2361






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-603/12: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Pia Braun v Region Hannover
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, discrimination on the basis of nationality, education grant, free movement of persons, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, residence permit








C_2014184EN.01002301.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/23





Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Pia Braun v Region Hannover
(Case C-603/12) (1)

2014/C 184/33
Language of the case: German
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 101, 6. 4. 2013.
Case C-128/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2014  — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Het Oudeland Beheer BV
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, cost price, delivery, real property, tax relief








C_2014159EN.01001501.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2014 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Het Oudeland Beheer BV
(Case C-128/14)
2014/C 159/21
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Het Oudeland Beheer BV

Questions referred







1)


Must Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the cost price of land or other substances or materials in respect of which the taxable person has paid VAT in respect of their acquisition, in this case through the grant of a right in rem to use immovable property, is not part of the taxable amount in respect of a supply within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive? Is the position different if the taxable person has deducted this VAT on the basis of national law — whether or not in conflict with the Sixth Directive in that respect — upon that acquisition?










2)


In a case such as the present one, in which land with a building under construction is acquired with the grant of a right in rem referred to in Article 5(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, must Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that the value of the ground rent, that is to say the value of the annual amounts to be paid for the duration or remainder of the duration of the right in rem, is part of the taxable amount of a supply within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive?






(1)  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).
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Ukraine, capital movement, economic sanctions, international sanctions, national independence, national sovereignty, territorial law








C_2014079EN.01000301.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/3





Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
2014/C 79/03
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.
Information concerning the entry into force of the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, cooperation agreement (EU), scientific cooperation, technical cooperation, technology








L_2014079EN.01000102.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 79/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation

The renewal of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation, signed on 16 November 2000
          (1) and renewed in 2003 (2), 2009 (3) and 2014 (4), has, in accordance with Article 12(a) thereof, entered into force on 14 February 2014. The renewal of the Agreement for a further period of 5 years, in accordance with Article 12(b) thereof, is effective as from 20 February 2014.


(1)  
            OJ L 299, 28.11.2000, p. 14.

(2)  
            OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 92, 4.4.2009, p. 3.

(4)  
            OJ L 32, 1.2.2014, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7166 — Sacyr/LBEIP/HC)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, building industry, economic concentration, medical institution, merger control, service concession, supplementary pension








C_2014079EN.01000201.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7166 — Sacyr/LBEIP/HC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 79/02
On 5 March 2014, 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 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in Spanish language 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 32014M7166. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Information on the date of entry into force of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: agreement (EU), catch by species, financial compensation of an agreement, fishery management, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing permit, fishing rights, scientific cooperation, sea fish, sea fishing








L_2014079EN.01000101.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 79/1







Information on the date of entry into force of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius

Following signature on 21 December 2013, the Republic of Mauritius and the European Union notified on 17 January and 28 January 2014 respectively, that they had finalised their internal procedures to conclude the Fisheries Partnership Agreement.
The Agreement accordingly entered into force on 28 January 2014 pursuant to Article 17 thereof.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7150 — Apollo/Ulster Bank/Arnotts)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, economic concentration, electronic commerce, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2014079EN.01000101.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7150 — Apollo/Ulster Bank/Arnotts)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 79/01
On 27 February 2014, 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 (1). 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 32014M7150. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7201 — Carlyle/Industrial Packaging Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, packaging product








C_2014079EN.01000501.xml










18.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7201 — Carlyle/Industrial Packaging Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 79/05






1.


On 7 March 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 Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Industrial Packaging Group (‘IPG’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Carlyle: global alternative asset management,










—


for IPG: manufacture and supply of industrial packaging and related equipment.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (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.7201 — Carlyle/Industrial Packaging Group, 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 ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.