do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-592/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2014 — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal experimentation, cosmetic product, health risk, product safety








C_2015081EN.01000801.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2014 — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
(Case C-592/14)
(2015/C 081/10)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients

Defendants: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

Interveners: British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, European Coalition to End Animal Experiments

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 18(l)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting the placing on the Community market of cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing where that testing was performed outside the European Union to meet the legislative or regulatory requirements of third countries in order to market cosmetic products containing those ingredients in those countries?










2.


Does the answer to question (1) depend on: -






(a)


whether the safety assessment carried out in accordance with Article 10 of that Regulation to demonstrate that the cosmetic product is safe for human health prior to it being made available on the Community market would involve the use of data resulting from the animal testing performed outside the European Union;










(b)


whether the legislative or regulatory requirements of the third countries for which the animal testing was undertaken relate to the safety of cosmetic products;










(c)


whether it was reasonably foreseeable, at the time that an ingredient was subjected to animal testing outside the European Union, that any person might seek to place a cosmetic product including that ingredient at some stage on the Community market; and/or










(d)


any other factor, and if so, what factor?










(1)  OJ L 342, p. 59
Case C-589/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Economic Area, deduction at source, infringement of EU law, tax exemption, tax on income








C_2015073EN.01001501.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/15






Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-589/14)
(2015/C 073/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that in maintaining provisions under which:






—


as regards interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) is subject to the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium benefits from an exemption from that tax, and










—


as regards interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, the interest is subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas that interest is exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution in Belgium,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the EEA.














—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that various provisions of the Royal Decree implementing the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992 make possible exemptions from withholding tax payable on interest subject to conditions that are not compatible with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties, namely Articles 56 and 63 TFEU.
First, as regards the interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA would be subject the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium would benefit from an exemption from that tax.
Second, as regards the interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, that interest would be subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas such interest would be exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an investment company in Belgium.
2014/952/EU: Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014 of 19 December 2014 on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Georgia, appointment of members, fact-finding mission








L_2014369EN.01007801.xml










24.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 369/78








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM GEORGIA/1/2014
of 19 December 2014
         
on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)

(2014/952/EU)



THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 13 September 2013, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM GEORGIA/1/2013 (2) appointing Mr Toivo KLAAR as Head of EUMM Georgia until 14 December 2014.












(3)


On 16 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/915/CFSP (3) extending the mandate of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 until 14 December 2016.












(4)


On 16 December 2014, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS is hereby appointed as Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 15 December 2014.




Done at Brussels, 19 December 2014.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

W. STEVENS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43.

(2)  
            OJ L 251, 21.9.2013, p.12.

(3)  Council Decision 2014/915/CFSP of 16 December 2014 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 360, 17.12.2014, p. 56).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7417 — Sime Darby / New Britain Palm Oil)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cattle, economic concentration, engine, industrial equipment, merger control, property development, provision of services, sugar, vegetable oil








C_2014457EN.01001801.xml










19.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7417 — Sime Darby / New Britain Palm Oil)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 457/08)






1.


On 10 December 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 Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd (Malaysia), belonging to Sime Darby Bhd (Malaysia), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking New Britain Palm Oil Limited (‘NBPOL’, Papua New Guinea) by way of public bid announced on 9 October 2014. The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 31 October 2014, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 27 November 2014.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Sime Darby Bhd: plantation and production of palm oil, sales and rental of industrial equipment, sales of motors, property development, energy and utilities,
—   for NBPOL: plantation, production and processing of palm oil, and production of sugar, beef and oil palm seeds.










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.










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 M.7417 — Sime Darby / New Britain Palm Oil, 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7468 — Oji Holdings/Itochu Corporation/Sales and production JVS) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Japan, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, merger control, pulp and paper industry, retail selling








C_2014457EN.01002001.xml










19.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/20





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7468 — Oji Holdings/Itochu Corporation/Sales and production JVS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 457/10)






1.


On 11 December 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 Itochu Enex Co., Ltd (‘Itochu Enex’ of Japan) and Oji Green Resources Co., Ltd (‘Oji Green’ of Japan) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a sales and a production joint ventures by way of purchase of shares in two newly created companies constituting joint ventures. The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 27 November 2014, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 5 December 2014.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Itochu Enex: sales of energy-related products such as petroleum products, LP gas and other types of gas, electric power as well as vehicle-related products and services,
—   for Oji Green: sales of pulp and wood products, plantation and energy business,
—   for the production and sales joint ventures: production and retail supply of electricity in Japan.










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 this 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7468 — Oji Holdings/Itochu Corporation/Sales and production JVS, 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 C-595/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, drug traffic, health control, health risk, psychotropic substance








C_2015138EN.01002601.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/26





Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-595/14)
(2015/C 138/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (1);










—


maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the European Parliament relies on two pleas in law.
The first plea concerns the Council’s use of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, alternatively, a secondary legal basis which, in itself, is unlawful in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice.
The second plea concerns the Council’s use of a decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/688/EU which is not legally correct. The Parliament was not involved in the procedure which led to adoption of the contested decision. The Parliament infers from this, consequently, infringement of the Treaties and of an essential procedural requirement.
Should the Court annul the contested decision, Parliament considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264(2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 287, p. 22.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, interest rate subsidy, primary sector








C_2014460EN.01001001.xml










19.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/10





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2014/C 460/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


16.10.2014




Aid number


SA.37501 (2013/N)




Member State


France




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Soutien aux exploitants en difficulté — Plan de redressement




Legal basis








—


articles D. 354-1 à D. 354-15 du code rural et de la pêche maritime










—


arrêté du 22 janvier 2009 fixant le montant des aides au redressement des exploitations en difficulté








Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Restructuring firms in difficulty




Form of aid


Interest subsidy




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 70 (in millions)
Annual budget: EUR 10 (in millions)




Intensity


0 %




Duration (period)


01.01.2014 — 31.12.2020




Economic sectors


AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY AND FISHING




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministère de l'agriculture, de l'agroalimentaire et de la forêt




3 rue barbet de Jouy 75349 Paris 07








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 C-593/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, corporation tax, subsidiary, tax exemption








C_2015073EN.01001701.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-593/14)
(2015/C 073/23)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

‘Does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU), preclude a Member State from not allowing a resident company a tax exemption for interest income where an affiliated company within the same group established in another Member State is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of rules (as in the present case) in the relevant Member State on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation, where the Member State allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest income in cases where an affiliated company within the same group in that same Member State is not allowed a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of national rules (as in the present case) on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation?’
Case T-824/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — Eveready Battery Company v OHIM — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, processing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015065EN.01004501.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/45





Action brought on 19 December 2014 — Eveready Battery Company v OHIM — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)
(Case T-824/14)
(2015/C 065/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imran Hussain and Others (Leeds, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Power Edge’ — Application for registration No 9 108 705

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 38/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014457EN.01000801.xml










19.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 457/8





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 December 2014
(2014/C 457/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2285




JPY


Japanese yen


145,96




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78650




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4361




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2052




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0645




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,606




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,73




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,45280




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2422




RON


Romanian leu


4,4713




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8533




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5005




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4248




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,5292




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5861




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6149




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,16




ZAR


South African rand


14,1879




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6364




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6675




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 440,50




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2521




PHP


Philippine peso


54,972




RUB


Russian rouble


75,4850




THB


Thai baht


40,376




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2777




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8120




INR


Indian rupee


77,4772






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