do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-289/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 June 2014  — Brit Air SA v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, air transport, franchising, indemnification, tax collection, ticket, transport company








C_2014261EN.01001602.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Brit Air SA v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics
(Case C-289/14)
2014/C 261/24
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brit Air SA

Defendant: Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

Questions referred







1)


Must Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a lump sum calculated as a percentage of the annual turnover received from routes operated as a franchise and paid onwards by an airline company which issued on behalf of another company tickets which are no longer valid constitutes non-taxable compensation paid to the latter, for the harm suffered as a result of the activation in vain by the latter of its means of transport or a sum corresponding to the proceeds from tickets issued and expired?










2)


In the event that that sum is deemed to correspond to the price of tickets issued and expired, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the issue of the ticket may be treated as the effective performance of the transport service and that the sums retained by an airline company where the holder of an air ticket has not used his ticket, which is no longer valid, are subject to value added tax?










3)


In that case, must the tax received be paid onwards to the Treasury by Air France or Brit Air on receipt of payment of the price, even though the travel may not have taken place as a result of the customer’s acts?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014178EN.01001201.xml










12.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 178/12





REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS
2014/C 178 A/02
Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.






5


 




6


 




11


 




19


 




21


 




26


 




27


 




30


(PL)




35


 




41


(DE/EN/FR)




42


 




43


 




46


 




47


 




48


 




55


 




56


 




60


 




62


 




65


 




73


(DE/EN/FR)




74


 




81


 




88


 




92


(DE/EN/FR)




97


 




98


 




99


 




108


 




109


 




116


 




119


 




133


 




134


 




136


 




137


(DE/EN/FR)




140


 




145


 




152


 




160


 




163


 




164


 




176


 




178
Case T-137/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark R 10 — Unregistered earlier national word mark R 10 — Assignment of the national trade mark — Proof of ownership of the earlier trade mark)
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, international trade, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014282EN.01002501.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/25





Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
(Case T-137/09 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark R 10 - Unregistered earlier national word mark R 10 - Assignment of the national trade mark - Proof of ownership of the earlier trade mark))
2014/C 282/31
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Petrer, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nike International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice and the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
Case C-291/14 P: Appeal brought on 12 June 2014 by Faci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10: Faci SpA v European Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fine, industrial chemistry, judicial review, petrochemicals, restriction on competition








C_2014303EN.01002001.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/20





Appeal brought on 12 June 2014 by Faci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10: Faci SpA v European Commission
(Case C-291/14 P)
2014/C 303/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Faci SpA (represented by: Messrs S. Piccardo, Avvocato, S. Crosby, Advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of 20 March 2014 of the General Court in Case T-46/10, or










—


in the alternative cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the Appellant, or










—


send the case back to the General Court for re-assessment, and










—


in any event order the European Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs at first instance and in this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10. In the judgment the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action of 28 January 2010 brought against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers) (1).
The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal:
By the first ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by not examining the gravity of the infringement after November 1996 by reference to the change in the nature of the cartel thereby failing to take all the circumstances into account relevant for the calculation of the fine imposed on the appellant and so infringed Point 20 of the 2006 fining guidelines and/or Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
By the second ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court failed to conduct an effective and in depth judicial review of the decision by holding without examination of the facts that the appellant had behaved exactly like all the other undertakings involved except that its implementation was less rigorous and by dismissing without any assessment that the ground that competition had been illegally distorted to the appellant’s detriment by application of Point 35 of the fining Guidelines to a competitor, Bärlocher.


(1)  OJ C 307, 12.11.2010, p. 9


(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 04.01.2003, p. 1
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014178EN.01002001.xml










12.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/20





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 June 2014
2014/C 178/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3547




JPY


Japanese yen


138,19




DKK


Danish krone


7,4615




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80700




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0467




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2179




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1085




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,445




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,62




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1138




RON


Romanian leu


4,3958




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8460




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4419




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4749




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5012




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5831




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6936




KRW


South Korean won


1 377,96




ZAR


South African rand


14,5603




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4376




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5810




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 000,89




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3540




PHP


Philippine peso


59,363




RUB


Russian rouble


46,5863




THB


Thai baht


44,041




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0194




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6653




INR


Indian rupee


80,3554






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-75/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties — Incurrence of a customs debt)
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs inspection, customs transit, customs warehouse








C_2014282EN.01001002.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/10





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen
(Case C-75/13) (1)

((Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties - Incurrence of a customs debt))
2014/C 282/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SEK Zollagentur GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Articles 50 and 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an article left for temporary storage must be deemed to have been removed from customs supervision if it is declared for an external Community transit procedure, but it does not in fact leave the storage facility and is not presented to the customs office at the place of destination, although the transit documents have been presented there.










2)


The fourth indent of Article 203(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where an article is removed from customs supervision, the person who, as the approved consignor, placed that article in the external Community transit procedure is a customs debtor under that provision.






(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case F-53/14: Action brought on 12th June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: dependant, family benefit, health expenditure, reimbursement of aid








C_2014421EN.01005802.xml










24.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/58





Action brought on 12th June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-53/14)
2014/C 421/84
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Simeons, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions withdrawing both the dependent child allowance that was granted to the applicant in favour of her mother and the covering by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European institutions (JSIS), and the annulment of the decisions to recover the sums paid to the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the three PMO.1 decisions of 20 August 2013, which revoked the decisions initially granting her the allowance for the maintenance of the applicant’s mother in the period from 1 March 2010 until 28 February 2013 (decisions of 11 May 2010,5 May 2011 and 16 January 2012);










—


annul the decision of PMO.3 of 25 September 2013 revoking the JSIS coverage of her mother and informing her about the recovery of the reimbursement of the medical expenses;










—


annul the decision of PMO.l of 23 October 2013 on the recovery of the overpaid sums under Article 85 of the SR;










—


so far as it is necessary, annul the decision of 12 March 2014 rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case C-563/13: Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UPC DTH Sàrl v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU statistics, building, energy efficiency, impact study, invitation to tender, property leasing, sale








C_2014315EN.01004604.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/46





Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UPC DTH Sàrl v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság
(Case C-563/13) (1)

2014/C 315/79
Language of the case: Hungarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7301 — PAI partners/Euro Media Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: customers, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2014178EN.01003701.xml










12.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/37





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7301 — PAI partners/Euro Media Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 178/11






1.


On 5 June 2014, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking PAI partners (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Euro Media Group (France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for PAI partners: portofolio management activities on behalf of third parties,
—   for Euro Media Group: provision of technical equipment and services for the production and delivery of media content.










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 the 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 M.7301 — PAI partners/Euro Media 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.
Case T-417/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Afar 4 v Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01005502.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/55





Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Afar 4 v Commission
(Case T-417/14)
2014/C 253/73
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Afar 4, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) 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 the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; 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 raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.
Case T-419/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, restriction on competition








C_2014282EN.01004101.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/41





Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission
(Case T-419/14)
2014/C 282/54
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (New York, United States of America) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables, in so far as they concern the applicant; and/or










—


Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the Decision;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (1) in holding GS Group jointly and severally liable for the infringement allegedly committed by Prysmian.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU in that it fails to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that GS Group actually exercised decisive influence over Prysmian over the relevant period.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as it violates the principle of personal liability and the presumption of innocence.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 as it violates the principles of legal certainty and that the penalty must be specific to the offender, in that the Commission did not allocate the fine.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that the Commission failed to give access to essential documents in due time.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court afford GS Group the benefit of any reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision which may be granted to Prysmian.






(1)  OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, p. 1
Council Decision of 12 June 2014 appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cedefop, France, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








C_2014180EN.01000301.xml










13.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/3





COUNCIL DECISION
of 12 June 2014
appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(2014/C 180/04)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof
Having regard to the nomination submitted by the French government,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 16 July 2012 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2012 to 17 September 2015.










(2)


A member’s seat is available for France on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Mr Jean-Marc HUART.










(3)


The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2015,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Sole Article
The following person is hereby appointed as a member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2015:
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES






FRANCE


Ms Brigitte DORIATH





Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 2014.


For the Council


The President

Y. MANIATIS




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 228, 31.7.2012, p. 3.
Joined Cases T-432/11, T-490/11, T-649/11, T-651/11, T-97/12, T-99/12 to T-102/12 and T-446/12: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Makhlouf and Others v Council
Date: 2014-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions








C_2014303EN.01005701.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/57





Order of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Makhlouf and Others v Council
(Joined Cases T-432/11, T-490/11, T-649/11, T-651/11, T-97/12, T-99/12 to T-102/12 and T-446/12) (1)

2014/C 303/68
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.