do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/277 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe apply
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Zimbabwe, capital movement, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2015062EN.01000201.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/2





Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/277 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe apply
(2015/C 62/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/277 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 (3), concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons, entities and bodies that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.
The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).
The persons, entities and bodies 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. Any such request should be sent 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, entities and bodies 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 42, 16.2.2011, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 47, 20.2.2015, p. 20.

(3)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.
Unilateral Declarations on Article 8 of the Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union, Croatia, Ireland
Subjects: Croatia, Ireland, double taxation, penalty, restrictive trade practice








C_2015062EN.01000401.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/4





Unilateral Declarations on Article 8 of the Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (1)

(2015/C 62/04)

DECLARATION BY CROATIA


‘The term “serious penalty” means a penalty for all taxation-related offences laid down in the General Tax Act and special tax laws, and a penalty for economic crimes laid down in the Criminal Code.’


DECLARATION BY IRELAND


‘Ireland will regard as “serious penalties” those where criminal proceedings are being taken, or have been taken, in the particular case because serious tax evasion was suspected.’



(1)  Council Decision 2014/899/EU of 9 December 2014 concerning the accession of Croatia to the Convention of 23 July 1990 on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (OJ L 358, 13.12.2014, p. 19).
Case C-81/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Minister for Finance
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, customs fraud, excise duty, fine








C_2015138EN.01004201.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/42





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Minister for Finance
(Case C-81/15)
(2015/C 138/56)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Question referred

May Directive 92/12/EEC (1), in the light of the general principles of EU law and, in particular, the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality thereof, be interpreted, in a case such as this, as prohibiting the implementation of legal provisions of a Member State, such as Article 108 of the Greek Customs Code, according to which the authorised warehousekeeper of goods moved from the tax warehouse thereof under a duty suspension arrangement, which departed the arrangements in question irregularly through smuggling, may be declared as jointly liable for the payment of administrative fines, on the ground of smuggling, regardless of whether the warehousekeeper had, at the time when the infringement was committed, possession of the goods, on the basis of the rules of private law, and, furthermore, regardless of whether the perpetrators of the infringement involved in that movement had concluded a particular contractual relationship with the authorised warehousekeeper from which they can be seen to have acted as agents of the authorised warehousekeeper?


(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7461 — AMDS Italia / CLN / JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, steel








C_2015062EN.01000601.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7461 — AMDS Italia / CLN / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 62/06)






1.


On 13 February 2015 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 ArcelorMittal Distribution Solutions Italia (‘AMDS Italia’), belonging to the ArcelorMittal Group, and C.L.N. — Coils Lamiere Nastri, Italy (‘CLN’), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created undertaking (‘JV’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ArcelorMittal Group: global steel and mining company producing a broad range of finished and semi-finished steel products,
—   for AMDS Italia: subsidiary of the ArcelorMittal Group, active in the distribution, processing and commercialisation of steel products in Italy,
—   for CLN: (i) distribution of steel in Italy; (ii) steel wheel production for cars, motorcycles, commercial and industrial vehicles; and (iii) production of pressed components for cars and commercial vehicles,
—   for JV: distribution of carbon steel flat products through Steel Service Centres in Italy.










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.7461 — AMDS Italia / CLN / JV, 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’).
Information notice on questions addressed to the Commission regarding the decision on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) for support to the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, exchange of information, nuclear power station








C_2015062EN.01001101.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/11





Information notice on questions addressed to the Commission regarding the decision on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) for support to the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station
(2015/C 62/09)
According to Article 194 of the TFEU, Member States are free to determine their energy mix. The United Kingdom has decided to promote nuclear energy and this decision is within its national competence. However, when public money is spent to support companies the Commission has the duty to verify that this is done in line with the EU State aid rules. Its role is to ensure that any State aid provided is necessary, proportionate and not distortive of competition or trade between Member States.
The Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure on this measure in December 2013, expressing doubts on the compatibility of the aid measure with the internal market based on the information available at that time. The opening decision aimed at ensuring that the final assessment would be well-grounded in facts and analysis and would take into account the views of all interested parties.
As part of the investigation procedure, the Commission received extensive information and submissions from interested parties and the United Kingdom authorities. These new elements, together with the intense and comprehensive scrutiny process conducted by the Commission, have informed the Commission’s assessment. In particular, the investigation showed that the support addresses a genuine market failure, dispelling the Commission’s initial doubts. It also resulted in substantial changes to the level of support compared to the original notification.
On this basis, the Commission adopted the final decision on this measure on 8 October 2014. It found that the modified plans of the United Kingdom to support the investment in a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C were compatible with EU State aid rules.
The public version of the decision has now been published on DG Competition’s website (1) Issues such as the proportionality of the aid and its impact on the deployment of alternative technologies, including renewable energy technologies, are discussed at length in the decision.


(1)  At the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_34947
Case T-83/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — L’atelier Wysiwyg (wysiwatch WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet)
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01003401.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/34





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — L’atelier Wysiwyg (wysiwatch WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet)
(Case T-83/15)
(2015/C 127/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’atelier Wysiwyg (Besançon, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘wysiwatch’ and ‘WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet’ — Application for registration No 11 041 597

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1873/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and L’atelier Wysiwyg to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe apply
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2015062EN.01000301.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/3





Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe apply
(2015/C 62/03)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004, concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:





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 purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Case T-81/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015  — Facchinello v OHIM — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01004102.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/41





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Facchinello v OHIM — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)
(Case T-81/15)
(2015/C 118/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Danila Facchinello (Molinella, Italy) (represented by: F. Torlontano, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olimpia Splendid SpA (Gualtieri, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Synthesis’ — Community trade mark No 2 8 71  069

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2169/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 and, consequently, declare that the Community trade mark Synthesis is not revoked in respect of goods in Class 11 (apparatus for air conditioning);










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the First Board of Appeal revoked the Community trade mark on the ground that the evidence adduced by its proprietor was not capable of establishing genuine use of that mark.
Case T-86/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, graphic illustration, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01005801.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/58





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
(Case T-86/15)
(2015/C 138/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle — Application for registration No 1 2 2 18  418

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 1795/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;










—


allow the community trade mark application No. 1 2 2 18  418 to proceed to publication; and










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-93/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Navitar v OHIM — Elukuva (NaviTar)
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01003501.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/35





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Navitar v OHIM — Elukuva (NaviTar)
(Case T-93/15)
(2015/C 127/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Navitar, Inc. (Rochester, United States) (represented by: J. Mattes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MTÜ Elukuva (Tallinn, Estonia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NaviTar’ — Application for registration No 11 147 246

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2014 in Case R 401/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;










—


order MTÜ Elukuva to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, in case MTÜ Elukuva should become an intervening party in this case.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-79/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism








C_2015146EN.01001701.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/17





Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council
(Case C-79/15 P)
(2015/C 146/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-400/10;










—


give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;
and










—


order the applicant in Case T-400/10 to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law.
First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the use by the Council of information in the public domain for the periodic review of the measures adopted.
Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in not concluding that the decisions of the competent authorities of the United States of America on the one hand and of the United Kingdom on the other constituted a sufficient basis to include Hamas on the list.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015062EN.01000501.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 February 2015
(2015/C 62/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1387




JPY


Japanese yen


135,52




DKK


Danish krone


7,4442




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73790




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5713




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0796




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,6450




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,373




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,34




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1695




RON


Romanian leu


4,4461




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7890




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4632




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4257




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8331




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5148




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5466




KRW


South Korean won


1 267,63




ZAR


South African rand


13,2596




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1229




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,7253




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 637,08




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1309




PHP


Philippine peso


50,291




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7133




THB


Thai baht


37,064




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2452




MXN


Mexican peso


17,0207




INR


Indian rupee


70,8384






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