do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Political and Security Committee Decision EUSEC/1/2009 of 25 September 2009 on the appointment of the Head of Mission for the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo)
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, appointment of staff, humanitarian aid, police cooperation, public safety, the EU's international role








L_2009257EN.01004001.xml










30.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 257/40








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUSEC/1/2009
of 25 September 2009
         
on the appointment of the Head of Mission for the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo)
(2009/723/CFSP)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 25 thereof,


Having regard to Council Joint Action 2009/709/CFSP of 15 September 2009 on the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 8 of Joint Action 2009/709/CFSP the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission.












(2)


On 24 June 2008, Jean-Paul MICHEL was appointed Head of Mission for the EUSEC RD Congo.












(3)


The Secretary-General/High Representative has proposed to appoint again Jean-Paul MICHEL as the Head of Mission for EUSEC RD Congo,





HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:



Article 1
Jean-Paul MICHEL is hereby appointed Head of Mission for the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUSEC RD Congo).


Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on 1 October 2009.




Done at Brussels, 25 September 2009.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

O. SKOOG
            





(1)  
            OJ L 246, 18.9.2009, p. 33.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5573 — Remeha Group/Baxi Holdings) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, heating, merger control








C_2009231EN.01004501.xml










25.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/45





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5573 — Remeha Group/Baxi Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 231/11






1.


On 16 September 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings De Dietrich Remeha Holding B.V. (‘Remeha’, The Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Baxi Holdings Limited (‘Baxi’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Remeha: development, manufacture an sale of heating products,










—


for Baxi: development, manufacture an sale of heating products.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5573 — Remeha Group/Baxi Holdings, 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.
Case F-58/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Avogadri and Others v Commission
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment








C_2009267EN.01008602.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/86





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Avogadri and Others v Commission
(Case F-58/08) (1)

2009/C 267/158

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the name of Ms Monica Leva be removed from the list of applicants.


(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 74.
Case C-381/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2009 — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, credit, interpretation of the law, loan, tax exemption, tax system








C_2009282EN.01003101.xml










21.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/31





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2009 — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-381/09)
2009/C 282/53
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Gennaro Curia

Respondent: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

In accordance with the Community law principles set out in the Sixth VAT Directive of the neutrality of VAT and exemption from VAT, under conditions laid down by the Member States, for transactions entailing the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it, can exorbitant lending activities, which are a criminal offence under national law, be subject to VAT where, in economic terms, they may be envisaged as being in competition with the corresponding lawful activities of granting money loans, which fall within the scope of VAT under national law but are deemed exempt thereunder whenever they may be regarded as ‘finance transactions’?
Corrigendum to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast ( OJ L 301, 12.11.2008 )
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Somalia, deterrent, exchange of information, littoral, maritime transport, military intervention, piracy, terrorism, theft








L_2009253EN.01001801.xml










25.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 253/18







Corrigendum to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 301 of 12 November 2008
)

On page 35, Article 2, introductory wording:
for:


                  ‘Under the conditions set by the relevant international law and by UNSC Resolutions 1814 (2008), 1816 (2008) and 1838 (2008), Atalanta shall, as far as available capabilities allow:’,

read:


                  ‘Under the conditions set by applicable international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and by UNSC Resolutions 1814 (2008), 1816 (2008) and 1838 (2008), Atalanta shall, as far as available capabilities allow:’;

on page 36, Article 12, paragraph 1, first indent:
for:






‘—


to the competent authorities of the flag Member State or of the third State participating in the operation, of the vessel which took them captive, or’,




read:






‘—


to the competent authorities of the Member State or of the third State participating in the operation, of which the vessel which took them captive flies the flag, or’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5598 — Dragados/POL — AQUA Group) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil engineering, dredging, economic concentration, exchange of information, gas pipeline, merger control, oil pipeline, public works, railway industry, water treatment








C_2009231EN.01000101.xml










25.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5598 — Dragados/POL — AQUA Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 231/01
On 16 September 2009, 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. 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 32009M5598. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 881/2009 of 25 September 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit








L_2009254EN.01000501.xml










26.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 254/5








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 881/2009
of 25 September 2009
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 September 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 September 2009.


For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MK 


31,4 




ZZ 


31,4 




0707 00 05 


TR 


119,3 




ZZ 


119,3 




0709 90 70 


TR 


108,7 




ZZ 


108,7 




0805 50 10 


AR 


113,8 




CL 


106,0 




TR 


96,9 




UY 


117,8 




ZA 


66,6 




ZZ 


100,2 




0806 10 10 


EG 


104,8 




IL 


111,8 




TR 


94,9 




US 


190,3 




ZZ 


125,5 




0808 10 80 


AR 


62,2 




BR 


83,8 




CL 


84,7 




NZ 


82,7 




US 


79,8 




ZA 


78,1 




ZZ 


78,6 




0808 20 50 


AR 


81,8 




CN 


48,1 




TR 


107,7 




US 


161,5 




ZA 


72,0 




ZZ 


94,2 




0809 30 


TR 


114,8 




ZZ 


114,8 




0809 40 05 


IL 


118,7 




TR 


99,1 




ZZ 


108,9 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case T-381/09: Action brought on 25 September 2009 — RWE Transgas v Commission
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), energy distribution, energy grid, gas industry, natural gas, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2009297EN.01002202.xml










5.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/22





Action brought on 25 September 2009 — RWE Transgas v Commission
(Case T-381/09)
2009/C 297/33
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: RWE Transgas a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: W. Deselaers, D. Seeliger and S. Einhaus, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


Declare invalid the third sentence of Point 89(a) of Commission Decision C(2009) 4694 of 12 June 2009, insofar as it finds that the applicant and Gazprom — to be considered for this purpose jointly — may together account for no more than 50 % of capacity as long as substantial long-term gas supply agreements exist between them;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision in its entirety;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an importer of gas into the Czech Republic, has brought an action against the letter of 12 June 2009 sent by the Commission to the German energy regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) in which the Commission asks the Bundesnetzagentur to amend certain aspects of the exemption it has granted, pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) for the gas pipeline project Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung (Baltic Sea Pipeline Link) (‘OPAL’). The applicant complains that one of the Commission’s conditions would have the effect of restricting or, as the case may be, preventing the applicant’s access to OPAL’s transport/release capacities in the Czech Republic.
In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing by denying it any opportunity to comment on the condition imposing a burden on it before it was adopted.
Second, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed the applicant’s right of access to documents, by denying it any access to the file of the proceedings.
Finally, the applicant complains that the defendant misapplied Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC and the principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment and the duty to state reasons (Article 253 EC).


(1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5649 — RREEF Fund/ENDESA/UFG/SAGGAS) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, coal, economic concentration, electricity supply, exchange of information, financial services, gas supply, investment, merger control, natural gas








C_2009231EN.01004601.xml










25.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/46





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5649 — RREEF Fund/ENDESA/UFG/SAGGAS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 231/12






1.


On 17 September 2009, 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 RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Fund LP (‘RREEF Fund’, United Kingdom), ultimately managed by Deutsche Bank (‘DB’, Germany), ENDESA Generación S.A. (‘ENDESA’, Spain), controlled by the group ENEL S.p.A. (‘ENEL’, Italy) and UNION FENOSA GAS, S.A. (‘UFG’, Spain), which is a joint venture between Unión Fenosa S.A. (now Gas Natural SDG, S.A. ‘GN’, Spain), and ENI S.p.A (‘ENI’, Italy), acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, joint control of the undertaking Planta De Regasification De Sagunto S.A. (‘SAGGAS’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares in an existing joint venture. Currently, SAGGAS is jointly controlled by UFG, Iberdrola S.A. (Spain) and ENDESA.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for RREEF Fund: investment fund active in banking, financial and related services worldwide,










—


for UFG: supply of gas to undertakings and individuals in Spain,










—


for ENDESA: generation, distribution and supply of electricity in Europe, South America and North Africa. It is also active in electricity trading throughout Europe, and natural gas, coal mining and real estate in Spain,










—


for SAGGAS: regasification of liquid natural gas in Spain.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5649 — RREEF Fund/ENDESA/UFG/SAGGAS, 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.
Special Report No 6/2009 European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: aid programme, aid system, aid to disadvantaged groups, food aid, report, socially disadvantaged class, terms for aid, use of aid








C_2009231EN.01003801.xml










25.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/38





Special Report No 6/2009 ‘European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed’
2009/C 231/07
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2009 ‘European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu
A hard copy and a CD-ROM version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Communication and Reports Unit




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form at EU-Bookshop.
Case F-38/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Caleprico v Commission
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, equal treatment








C_2009267EN.01008601.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/86





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Caleprico v Commission
(Case F-38/07) (1)

2009/C 267/157

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 45.
Case C-379/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 25 September 2009 — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, air transport, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social security, transfer of pension rights, wage earner








C_2009312EN.01001601.xml










19.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 25 September 2009 — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc
(Case C-379/09)
2009/C 312/25
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Maurits Casteels

Respondent: British Airways plc

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 42 EC, in the absence of action on the part of the Council, be invoked by a private individual against his private-sector employer in a dispute before national courts?










2.


Do Article 39 EC, prior to the adoption of Directive 98/49, (1) and Article 42 EC, individually or in conjunction with each other, preclude the following situation:
In the case where an employee who is in the service of the same legal entity/employer, otherwise than in the context of postings, is employed successively in a number of operating units of that employer in various Member States and in each case is subject to the supplementary pension plans applicable to those operating units,






—


for the determination of a period for the acquisition of definitive entitlements to supplementary pension benefits (based on the contributions of the employer and the employee) in a particular Member State, no account is taken of the years of service already completed with the same employer in another Member State or of the employee’s membership of a supplementary pension scheme there, and










—


the transfer of an employee, with his agreement, to an operating unit of the same employer in another Member State is treated as equivalent to the situation, as envisaged in the pension rules, of an employee voluntarily leaving an operating unit, in which case entitlements to a supplementary pension are limited to the employee’s own contributions,










—


and that situation has the unfavourable consequence that the employee loses his entitlements to supplementary pension benefits in relation to his employment in that Member State, which would not have been the case had he worked for his employer in only one Member State and remained a member of the supplementary pension scheme of that Member State?










(1)  Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 46).