do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-10/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, gift, head office, infringement of EU law, research and development, research body, tax relief, teaching








C_2010063EN.01003801.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/38





Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-10/10)
2010/C 63/60
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by authorising tax deductibility for donations to research and educational institutions only in the case of institutions established within Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA;










—


order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Commission’s view, donations to research and educational institutions which pursue non-commercial objectives come under the free movement of capital under Article 56 EC. The Austrian Government allows tax deduction only in the case of donations made to such institutions which are established in Austria, but not in the case of donations made to similar institutions in other Member States or in other States of the European Economic Area. This, the Commission submits, constitutes a breach of Article 56 EC and of Article 40 EEA.
In justification of this rule, the Republic of Austria argues that this amounts, in substantive terms, to a permissible restriction of the favourable treatment of donations which releases the State from what would otherwise be an obligation on it to provide finance. This, it contends, follows inter alia from the judgment in Case C-396/04 Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer. (1)

The Commission takes issue with that justification. The provisions in dispute, it argues, draw a distinction on purely geographical grounds and irrespective of the purpose of the beneficiary institutions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the interaction, claimed by the Republic of Austria, between direct State financing and the favourable tax treatment accorded to donations made by private individuals. Even if the interaction claimed by the Republic of Austria did exist, it would not, in the Commission’s view, justify any restriction of the free movement of capital as it does not involve a qualified interest relating to the tax system within the terms of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-204/90 Bachmann. (2)



(1)  Judgment in Case C-386/04 Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer [2006] ECR I-8203.

(2)  Judgment in Case C-204/90 Bachmann [1992] ECR I-249.
Case C-7/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, other party: T. Kahveci
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, dual nationality, family, interpretation of the law, labour market, migrant worker








C_2010063EN.01003701.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/37





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, other party: T. Kahveci
(Case C-7/10)
2010/C 63/58
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Other party: T. Kahveci

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State cannot invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality?










2.


In answering the first question is the time at which the Turkish worker concerned acquired the nationality of the host Member State of relevance?
Case C-12/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2010 — LECSON Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, electronics, interpretation of the law, motor car








C_2010080EN.01001401.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2010 — LECSON Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund
(Case C-12/10)
2010/C 80/24
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LECSON Elektromobile GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Dortmund

Question referred

Do the electric mobility scooters which are described more precisely in the order fall within heading 8713 or heading 8703 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? (1)



(1)  OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1.
Case C-8/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, company law, management accounting, national implementing measure, publication of accounts








C_2010080EN.01001301.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/13





Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-8/10)
2010/C 80/22
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/46/EC lapsed on 5 September 2008. At the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1.
Case C-11/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, customs duties, interpretation of the law, pharmaceutical product, tariff exemption








C_2010080EN.01001302.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV
(Case C-11/10)
2010/C 80/23
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Marishipping and Transport BV

Questions referred







1.


Is the exemption of pharmaceutical substances from customs duties laid down in Part One, Section II, Part C (i), of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987, in conjunction with the list of pharmaceutical substances contained in Part Three (annexes), Section II, Annex 3, restricted to the pure form of the (chemical) substances referred to?










2.


If other substances may be added to the pharmaceutical substances indicated, what restrictions should apply in that regard?






(1)  Regulation on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
Case T-446/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2010 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission (Interim measures — Programme Life — Reimbursement of a part of the amounts paid — Recovery order — Debit note — Application for suspension of enforcement — Financial loss — Exceptional circumstances — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), management, project evaluation, redemption, working time








C_2010051EN.01003301.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/33





Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2010 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission
(Case T-446/09 R)
(Interim measures - Programme Life - Reimbursement of a part of the amounts paid - Recovery order - Debit note - Application for suspension of enforcement - Financial loss - Exceptional circumstances - Lack of urgency)
2010/C 51/64
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (Coimbra, Portugal) (represented by: L. Pais do Amaral, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and J-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decisions contained, respectively, in Commission letter D (2009) 224268 of 9 September 2009, concerning a recovery order, and Commission debit note No 3230909105 of 11 September 2009 for an amount of EUR 327 500,35.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-6/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, company law, management accounting, national implementing measure, publication of accounts








C_2010080EN.01001202.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/12





Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-6/10)
2010/C 80/21
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schiertere de Lophem, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/46/EC lapsed on 5 September 2008. On the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5759 — Macquarie Funds/Antin IP/Pisto Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, investment company, merger control, petroleum product, storage








C_2010004EN.01002401.xml










8.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5759 — Macquarie Funds/Antin IP/Pisto Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 4/06






1.


On 23 December 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 Macquarie Funds and Antin Infrastructure Partners (‘Antin IP’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 joint control over Macquarie Strategic Storage Facilities Holdings S.a.r.l. (‘MSSFH’, Luxembourg) and its subsidiaries (together ‘The Pisto Group’, France) by way of the grant of certain contractual veto rights.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for the Macquarie Funds: financial and infrastructure investment activities,










—


for Antin IP: an infrastructure investment fund sponsored by BNP Paribas, which is a French-based provider of banking and financial services; and,










—


for the Pisto Group: active in the oil products storage sector.














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.5759 — Macquarie Funds/Antin IP/Pisto Group, 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.
Case C-9/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Other party: O. Inan
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, dual nationality, family, interpretation of the law, labour market, migrant worker








C_2010063EN.01003702.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/37





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Other party: O. Inan
(Case C-9/10)
2010/C 63/59
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Staatssecretaris van Justitie, O. Inan

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State cannot invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality?










2.


In answering the first question is the time at which the Turkish worker concerned acquired the nationality of the host Member State of significance?
Case T-5/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — Commission v Earthscan
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, appeal, contract, energy production, redemption, renewable energy, user guide








C_2010080EN.01003301.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/33





Action brought on 8 January 2010 — Commission v Earthscan
(Case T-5/10)
2010/C 80/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, S. Petrova, Agents, assisted by P. Hermant and G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyers)

Defendant: Earthscan Ltd (Kent, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought







—


order the defendant to repay the Commission the amount of EUR 44 903,22, corresponding to a principal amount of EUR 45 835,44 of which EUR 6 486,09 was already paid and interests until 30 September 2009 of EUR 5 556,87;










—


order the defendant to pay interests of EUR 3,84 per day from 1 October 2009 on until the entirety of the debt is paid;










—


order that the defendant pay the cost incurred by the Commission.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests that the defendant be ordered to repay part of the advance paid by the applicant, together with default interests, as a result of the non-performance of contract No 4.1030/Z/01-035/2001, concluded between the applicant and nine contractors including the defendant, for the development, the publication and the dissemination of a guide on renewable energy (project ‘Guide for Renewable Energy installations to promote biomass, photovoltaics and solar thermal in the EU’) in the framework of the ALTENER programme (1).
The applicant raises a single plea in law.
Given that the defendant did not carry out the performance of the contract for phases 6 and 7 (layout, typesetting, printing and dissemination), the applicant contends that the defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse its share of the pre-financing that was overpaid in application of the contract. It claims that the defendant must therefore be condemned to repay the overpaid amount, accrued with the default interests as calculated in the contract.


(1)  Decision No 646/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2000 adopting a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community (Altener) (1998 to 2002), OJ L 79, p. 1
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-01-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010004EN.01000101.xml










8.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 January 2010
2010/C 4/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4304




JPY


Japanese yen


133,50




DKK


Danish krone


7,4411




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89960




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2120




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4832




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1980




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,370




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


270,30




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1225




RON


Romanian leu


4,1731




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1195




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5611




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4789




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,0930




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9536




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9993




KRW


South Korean won


1 623,50




ZAR


South African rand


10,5883




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,7663




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2915




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 265,41




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8225




PHP


Philippine peso


65,559




RUB


Russian rouble


42,6175




THB


Thai baht


47,439




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4969




MXN


Mexican peso


18,2993




INR


Indian rupee


65,3800






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