26.2.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/1

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2015

(2015/C 68/01)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1346
JPY	Japanese yen	134,92
DKK	Danish krone	7,4650
GBP	Pound sterling	0,73280
SEK	Swedish krona	9,4910
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0773
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	8,6325
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	27,419
HUF	Hungarian forint	305,55
PLN	Polish zloty	4,1615
RON	Romanian leu	4,4223
TRY	Turkish lira	2,8017
AUD	Australian dollar	1,4388
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4116
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,7997
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,5031
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,5378
KRW	South Korean won	1 248,89
ZAR	South African rand	13,0250
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,1025
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,6840
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	14 617,03
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,0908
PHP	Philippine peso	49,988
RUB	Russian rouble	70,3432
THB	Thai baht	36,909
BRL	Brazilian real	3,2395
MXN	Mexican peso	16,9424
INR	Indian rupee	70,3083

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

26.2.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 July 2014

in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between:

Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others

and

The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes

(Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)

(2015/C 68/05)

In Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13, between Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes — REQUESTS to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Tax Appeals Board for the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises (Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter) and Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett), concerning the interpretation of the rules on freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, in particular the interpretation of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, in relation to the Norwegian controlled foreign company tax legislation (‘CFC rules’) which permits national taxation of capital placed in a low-tax country, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 July 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. – 2.

A trust such as Ptarmigan Trust falls within the scope of Article 31 EEA provided that the trust pursues a real and genuine economic activity within the EEA for an indefinite period and through a fixed establishment. Whether this is the case is for the national court to assess. All interested parties, that is to say the trust’s settlors, trustees and beneficiaries hold the rights under Articles 31 and 34 EEA.

Beneficiaries of capital assets set up in the form of a trust that are subject to national tax measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be able to invoke Article 40 EEA in the event that they are not found to have exercised definite influence over an independent undertaking in another EEA State or engaged in economic activity that comes within the scope of the right of establishment. It is for the national courts to make the final assessment in that regard, based on the factual circumstances of the case.

The difference in treatment entailed by section 10-60 of the Tax Act creates a tax disadvantage for resident taxpayers to whom the legislation on controlled foreign companies applies, which is such as to hinder their exercise of freedom of establishment, dissuading them from establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in an EEA State in which the latter is subject to low levels of taxation. It therefore constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 31 and 34 EEA. If the tax disadvantage resulting from the differential treatment for resident taxpayers under section 10-60 is such as to hinder the beneficiaries from investing funds in another EEA State, without any intention to influence the control or the management of an undertaking, and from engaging in the movement of capital of a personal nature, it constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 40 EEA and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement.

Moreover, a rule of national law entailing that, in contrast to participants in comparable domestic entities, personal participants in a controlled foreign company in another EEA State are not afforded any opportunity to undo the economic double taxation that the Norwegian CFC rules entail constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Articles 31 and 34 EEA, or, depending upon the assessment of the national court, the free movement of capital which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 40 EEA.

A restriction on the freedom of establishment or, where applicable, the free movement of capital resulting from national CFC legislation such as that applicable in the main proceedings may be justified on grounds of overriding public interest, in particular on considerations of preventing tax avoidance or maintaining the balanced allocation of taxing powers between EEA States. The restriction is proportionate if it relates only to wholly artificial arrangements which seek to escape the national tax payable in comparable situations. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives a controlled foreign company is actually established in the host EEA State and carries on genuine economic activities, which take effect in the EEA.

It is for the national court to determine whether the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds that are not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law. If so, the difference in tax rate constitutes a restriction under Article 31 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 40 EEA.

7.	The difference in tax rate cannot be justified if the beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law.

26.2.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/7

INFORMATION NOTICE — PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Geographical indications from the Republic of Moldova

(2015/C 68/06)

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) entered into force on 1 April 2013. It was furthermore incorporated in the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part (2).

Article 298(1) of the abovementioned Association Agreement foresees the possibility for the Parties to add new geographical indications (GIs) to be protected in Annexes XXX-C and XXX-D in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 306(3). In this context, the protection in the European Union, as geographical indications, of the Moldovan names set out below is under consideration.

The Commission invites any Member State or third country or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, resident or established in a Member State or in a third country, to submit oppositions to such protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement.

Statements of opposition must reach the Commission within 2 months of the date of this publication. Statements of opposition should be sent to the following e-mail address:

AGRI-A4-GI@ec.europa.eu

Statements of opposition shall be examined only if they are received within the time limit set out above and if they show that the protection of the name proposed would:

(a)	conflict with the name of a plant variety or an animal breed and as a result be likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product;

(b)

be wholly or partially homonymous with that of a name already protected in the Union under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (3), and Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (4) or contained in the agreements the Union has concluded with the following countries:

—	Australia (5)

—

Chile (6)

—	South Africa (7)

—	Switzerland (8)

—	Mexico (9)

—	Korea (10)

—	Central America (11)

—	Colombia and Peru (12)

—	Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (13)

—	Canada (14)

—	United States (15)

—	Albania (16)

—	Montenegro (17)

—	Bosnia and Herzegovina (18)

—	Serbia (19)

—	Georgia (20)

(c)	in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used, be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product;

(d)	jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a trade mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least 5 years preceding the date of the publication of this notice;

(e)	or if they can give details from which it can be concluded that the name for which protection is considered is generic.

The criteria referred to above shall be evaluated in relation to the territory of the Union, which in the case of intellectual property rights refers only to the territory or territories where the said rights are protected. The eventual protection of these names in the European Union is subject to the successful conclusion of these negotiations and subsequent legal act.

No budgetary implications.

List of GIs for wines and agricultural products and foodstuffs (21)

Type of product	Name as registered in the Republic of Moldova
Wines	Codru
Wines	Ştefan vodă
Wines	Vadul lui Traian
Spirit drinks	Divin

(1) OJ L 10, 15.1.2013, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 260, 31.8.2014, p. 4.

(3) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(4) OJ L 39, 13.2.2008, p. 16.

(5) Council Decision 2009/49/EC of 28 November 2008 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine (OJ L 28, 30.1.2009, p. 1).

(6) Council Decision 2002/979/EC of 18 November 2002 on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of an Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 1).

(7) Council Decision 2002/51/EC of 21 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine (OJ L 28, 30.1.2002, p. 3.) and Council Decision 2002/52/EC of 21 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in spirits (OJ L 28, 30.1.2002, p. 112).

(8) Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 1) and in particular the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Federation on trade in agricultural products — Annex 7.

(9) Council Decision 97/361/EC of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (OJ L 152, 11.6.1997, p. 15).

(10) Council Decision 2011/265/EU of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (OJ L 127, 14.5.2011, p. 1).

(11) Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other (OJ L 346, 15.12.2012, p. 3).

(12) Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3).

(13) Council Decision 2001/916/EC of 3 December 2001 on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the outcome of the negotiations between the parties on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine names and the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of designations for spirits and aromatised drinks (OJ L 342, 27.12.2001, p. 6).

(14) Council Decision 2004/91/EC of 30 July 2003 on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and Canada on trade in wines and spirit drinks (OJ L 35, 6.2.2004, p. 1).

(15) Council Decision 2006/232/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (OJ L 87, 24.3.2006, p. 1).

(16) Council Decision 2006/580/EC of 12 June 2006 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part — Protocol 3 on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine, spirit drinks and aromatised wine names (OJ L 239, 1.9.2006, p. 1).

(17) Council Decision 2007/855/EC of 15 October 2007 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part (OJ L 345, 28.12.2007, p. 1).

(18) Council Decision 2008/474/EC of 16 June 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (OJ L 169, 30.6.2008, p. 10) — Protocol 6.

(19) Council Decision 2010/36/EC of 29 April 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (OJ L 28, 30.1.2010, p. 1).

(20) Council Decision 2012/164/EU of 14 February 2012 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 93, 30.3.2012, p. 1).

(21) List provided by the Moldovan authorities in the framework of the ongoing review, registered in the Republic of Moldova.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 68

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 58 26 February 2015

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2015/C 068/01	Euro exchange rates	1

	V Announcements
	ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
	European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
2015/C 068/02	Notice of Open Competitions	2
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	EFTA Court
2015/C 068/03	Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2014 in Case E-26/13 — The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson (Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)	3
2015/C 068/04	Judgment of the Court of 7 July 2014 in Case E-5/13 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)	4
2015/C 068/05	Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2014 in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between: Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes (Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)	5
	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2015/C 068/06	Information Notice — Public Consultation — Geographical indications from the Republic of Moldova	7