do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network’ (Recast) COM(2009) 391 final — 2009/0110 (COD)
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, air transport, common transport policy, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, maritime transport, rail transport, road transport, trans-European network, transport infrastructure








C_2010128EN.01014701.xml










18.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/147





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network’
(Recast)
COM(2009) 391 final — 2009/0110 (COD)
(2010/C 128/28)
On 11 September 2009, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (Recast)

COM(2009) 391 final – 2009/0110 (COD).
Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 457th plenary session of 4 and 5 November 2009 (meeting of 4 November) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 4 November 2009


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5683 — Brookfield/BBI/DBCT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial management, harbour installation, investment company, management, merger control, provision of services








C_2009262EN.01003401.xml










4.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/34





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5683 — Brookfield/BBI/DBCT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 262/14






1.


On 14 October 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 Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, Canada) will simultaneously acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, (i) sole control over BBI Port Acquisitions (UK) Limited, currently wholly controlled by BBI, and (ii) joint control together with Babcock & Brown Infrastructure (‘BBI’, Australia) of Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal (‘DBCT’, Australia) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Brookfield is a global asset manager investing in property, power and other infrastructure assets,










—


BBI is an infrastructure fund which manages an international portfolio of infrastructure assets, principally in the transport sector and the energy distribution and transmission sector,










—


DBCT is an Australian port facility, which exports metallurgical and thermal coal mined in the Bowen Basin region of Queensland, Australia,










—


BBI Port Acquisitions (UK) Limited is a subsidiary of BBI controlling PD Ports, a UK based regional port and port services operator.














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. 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 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 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5683 — Brookfield/BBI/DBCT, 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.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive …/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road’ (codified version) COM(2009) 446 final – 2009/0123 (COD)
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, road transport, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety








C_2010128EN.01014801.xml










18.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/148





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive …/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road’
(codified version)
COM(2009) 446 final – 2009/0123 (COD)
(2010/C 128/29)
On 29 September 2009, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive …/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (codified version)

COM(2009) 446 final - 2009/0123 (COD).
Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it unanimously decided, at its 457th plenary session of 4 and 5 November 2009 (meeting of 4 November 2009), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 4 November 2009.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI
Case T-445/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contract, eligibility criteria, redemption, rights of the defence, scientific research








C_2010024EN.01005402.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/54





Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
(Case T-445/09)
2010/C 24/97
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 17 August 2009 in so far as it relates to the set-off between the applicant’s claim on the Community under the Role of Skin contract, and the Community’s alleged claim on the applicant under the EURO-THYMAIDE contract;










—


order the Commission to the pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) seeks the annulment of the set-off measure contained in Decision BUDG/C3 D(2009) 10.5 — 1232 of 17 August 2009, by which the Commission recovered sums paid to the applicant pursuant to the EURO-THYMAIDE contract No LSHB-CT-2003-503410 relating to a project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
The applicant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its application, alleging:






—


infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision was taken without the Commission having considered the information in the applicant’s detailed response to the final audit report;










—


breach of the duty to state the reasons for the decision, as provided for under Article 253 EC, given the absence of essential information enabling the Commission’s reasoning in the decision to be understood;










—


errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the Commission refused eligible costs by adjusting the eligibility criteria for expenditure incurred pursuant to the contract, and erroneously dismissed conclusive evidence of such expenditure;










—


infringement of Article 73(1) of the Financial Regulation, in that the claim at issue could not be regarded as ‘certain, of a fixed amount and due’, owing to the serious nature of the challenge mounted against it;










—


infringement of the principle of legal certainty on account of the fact that the decision was taken on the basis of expenditure eligibility criteria which did not exist when the contract was signed.
Case C-433/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, delivery, motor car, tax on consumption








C_2010024EN.01002501.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/25





Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
(Case C-433/09)
2010/C 24/45
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by including the standard fuel consumption tax in the basis of assessment of the value added tax imposed in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria did not comply with its obligations under Articles 78 and 79 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1);










—


order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains of the inclusion of the standard fuel consumption tax (SFCT) in the basis of assessment of the value added tax imposed by the Republic of Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle in the Republic of Austria.
The standard fuel consumption tax essentially consists of a single registration tax, as its main feature is the registration of motor vehicles in the Republic of Austria. Consequently, the case-law of the Court of Justice in Case C-98/05 (2), according to which such a tax is not to be included in the basis of assessment of value added tax, is applicable to the present case.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Case C-98/05 De Danske Bilimportører [2006] ECR I-4945.
Case F-90/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Ernotte v Commission
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, cardiovascular disease, damage, indemnification, personnel administration








C_2010011EN.01004101.xml










16.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/41





Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Ernotte v Commission
(Case F-90/09)
2010/C 11/78
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Frédéric Ernotte (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for an order against the Commission to make good the material and non-material loss which the applicant suffered as a result of the procedure for handling his case concerning the recognition of the accidental origin of the infarct which he suffered.

Form of order sought







—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 96 579 175 (increased by default interest calculated using the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations increased by two percentage points, from 1 January 2006) as compensation for the material loss he suffered as a result of the off-handedness and the unreasonable period in which the Commission handled its case concerning the recognition of the accidental origin of the infarct which he suffered on 28 August 2002;










—


award damages for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant assessed provisionally ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000, subject to that figure being increased or decreased in the course of the proceedings;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2009262EN.01000401.xml










4.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

3 November 2009
2009/C 262/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4658




JPY


Japanese yen


132,25




DKK


Danish krone


7,4422




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89860




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4635




CHF


Swiss franc


1,5121




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,5135




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,279




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


278,20




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7092




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2860




RON


Romanian leu


4,3015




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2110




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6350




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5834




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,3604




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,0521




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0545




KRW


South Korean won


1 734,76




ZAR


South African rand


11,5629




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


10,0085




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2473




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 137,59




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0284




PHP


Philippine peso


69,995




RUB


Russian rouble


43,0487




THB


Thai baht


49,069




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5904




MXN


Mexican peso


19,5259




INR


Indian rupee


69,4720






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5476 — PFIZER/WYETH) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, health care, marketing, medicinal product, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2009262EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5476 — PFIZER/WYETH)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 262/01
On 17 July 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 32009M5476. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5639 — Alpha V/Investindustrial Funds/Permasteelisa) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, disclosure of information, economic concentration, furniture industry, investment company, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2009262EN.01000102.xml










4.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5639 — Alpha V/Investindustrial Funds/Permasteelisa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 262/02
On 20 October 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 32009M5639. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5574 — IPIC/OMV/NOVA) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, energy distribution, energy production, gas industry, investment company, merger control, oil industry, oil refining, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2009262EN.01000202.xml










4.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5574 — IPIC/OMV/NOVA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 262/04
On 26 October 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 32009M5574. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5565 — BAE Systems/BVT) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: armed forces, communications systems, disclosure of information, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation, service, warships








C_2009262EN.01000201.xml










4.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5565 — BAE Systems/BVT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 262/03
On 26 October 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 32009M5565. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-443/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission
Date: 2009-11-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, consultancy, development aid, tendering








C_2010011EN.01003301.xml










16.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/33





Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission
(Case T-443/09)
2010/C 11/62
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision.










—


Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present action is a leading management consultancy providing technical advisory services for international development projects. It is bringing an action against the Commission’s decision in connection with the award of Lot No 11 in contract notice EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi (OJ S 128 of 4 July 2008) not to include among the six economically most advantageous bids that submitted by the consortium of which the applicant was the leading participant and to award that lot to other tenderers.
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of its application for annulment:






—


distortion of the evidence and the factual circumstances. The contested decision rejected the applicant’s bid on the basis that the ‘declarations of exclusivity’ of three experts in its bid were also to be found in other bids and it was therefore necessary to exclude them from the evaluation. That conclusion is vitiated in so far as it failed to take account of the experts’ statements denying that some of those declarations had any value, on the one hand, or actually claiming that they were false, on the other;










—


misinterpretation of the consequences to be drawn from the non-compliance of the ‘declarations of exclusivity’ and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the defendant imposed the penalty laid down for cases in which more than one declaration of exclusivity is signed on all the tenders, without considering the role and responsibilities of the company or the expert;










—


infringement of legal requirements, of the principle of sound administration and the principal of proportionality, in so far as the defendant failed to exercise the power conferred on it to request clarification where there is some ambiguity concerning some aspect of the tender before confirming that errors exist which may affect the validity of a tender.




The applicant, which also submits that there has been infringement of the obligation to state reasons, seeks, in addition, compensation for the damage suffered on grounds of non-contractual liability for unlawful acts or, in the alternative, for lawful acts.