do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-94/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, excise duty, interpretation of the law, redemption








C_2010100EN.01003201.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-94/10)
2010/C 100/47
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred







1.


Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for reimbursement brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the ground that it is not the undertaking that paid the duty to the State?










2.


Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for damages brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the grounds put forward by the Member State (specifically, that the undertaking is not the directly injured party and that there is no direct causal link between any loss and the conduct giving rise to liability)?
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, processing industry








C_2010040EN.01000301.xml










17.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/3





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 40/02






Date of adoption of the decision


28.10.2009




Reference number of State Aid


NN 47/09




Member State


Germany




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Beschwerde betreffend das IMS-Fraunhofer Institut, Duisburg.




Legal basis


—




Type of measure


—




Objective


—




Form of aid


—




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 45 million




Intensity


Measure does not constitute aid




Duration (period)


—




Economic sectors


Manufacturing industry




Name and address of the granting authority


—




Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Commission Decision of 17 February 2010 appointing the members of the European Consumer Consultative Group and their alternates
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, appointment of members, consumer information, consumer movement, consumer protection








C_2010050EN.01000401.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/4





COMMISSION DECISION
of 17 February 2010
appointing the members of the European Consumer Consultative Group and their alternates
2010/C 50/03
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Commission Decision 2009/705/EC of 14 September 2009 setting up a European Consumer Consultative Group (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The mandate of the current members of the European Consumer Consultative Group expired on 14 November 2009.










(2)


Therefore, it is necessary to appoint new members and alternates for a three-year period, on the basis of the proposals put forward by the Member States and the European consumer organisations,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The following persons are appointed members or alternates of the European Consumer Consultative Group for a three-year term of office:






Members


Alternates




Gilles de HALLEUX (BE)


Thibault WILLAERT (BE)




Asen NENOV (BG)


Bogomil NIKOLOV (BG)




Karel PAVLÍK (CZ)


Libor DUPAL (CZ)




Rasmus KJELDAHL (DK)


Benedicte FEDERSPIEL (DK)




Cornelia TAUSCH (DE)


Heinz WILLNAT (DE)




Linda LÄÄNESAAR (EE)


Enn-Toivo ANNUK (EE)




James DOORLEY (IE)


Dermott JEWELL (IE)




Evangelia KEKELEKI (EL)


Konstantinos DAGKOS (EL)




Conchy MARTIN REY (ES)


Eugenio RIBÓN SEISDEDOS (ES)




Sandrine PERROIS (FR)


Elsa COHEN (FR)




Massimiliano DONA (IT)


Carlo PILERI (IT)




Giorgos TZIAPOURAS (CY)


Maria FOTIOU (CY)




Baiba MILTOVIČA (LV)


Aivars SMAGARS (LV)




Eglė KYBARTIENĖ (LT)


Zita ČEPONYTÉ (LT)




Eugène KIRSCH (LU)


Bob SCHMITZ (LU)




Zsolt HAJNAL (HU)


Anita CZÁR (HU)





To be defined (MT)



To be defined (MT)




Rogier KLIMBIE (NL)


Rob DORSCHEIDT (NL)




Karl KOLLMANN (AT)


Ulrike DOCEKAL (AT)




Olesia FRĄCZEK (PL)


Grażyna ROKICKA (PL)




Luís SILVEIRA RODRIGUES (PT)


Patrícia GOMES (PT)




Emil BOJIN (RO)


Sorin TOMA (RO)




Breda KUTIN (SI)


Živa DROL NOVAK (SI)




Miroslav TULÁK (SK)


Božena STAŠENKOVÁ (SK)




Tuula SARIO (FI)


Kaisa PANNIMAA-PÄTSI (FI)




Jens HENRIKSSON (SE)


Jan BERTOFT (SE)




Michelle SMYTH (UK)


Jill JOHNSTONE (UK)




Stephen RUSSELL (ANEC)


Chiara GIOVANNINI (ANEC)




Monique GOYENS (BEUC)


Ursula PACHL (BEUC)





Done at Brussels, 17 February 2010.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Robert MADELIN

Director-General for Health and Consumers





(1)  OJ L 244, 16.9.2009, p. 21.
Case T-96/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and others v ECHA
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Chemicals Agency, action for annulment (EU), chemical product, environmental risk prevention, marketing standard, product safety, scientific report








C_2010113EN.01006601.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/66





Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and others v ECHA
(Case T-96/10)
2010/C 113/98
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought







—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene paste;










—


order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil, anthracene paste (CAS Number 90640-81-6) (“anthracene oil (paste)”) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.
On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil (paste) was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil (paste) as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic mutagenic and also persistent, and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.
The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application which are identical to those raised in Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)
Case T-67/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, Structural Funds, action for annulment (EU), development aid, economic conversion, employment policy, regional aid








C_2010100EN.01006001.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/60





Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-67/10)
2010/C 100/88
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 final of 10 December 2009 on applying financial corrections on the EAGGF Guidance part of the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) for the measure ‘Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products’, and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the view of the Kingdom of Spain the decision should be annulled on two grounds:






 


First, erroneous application of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) as the irregularities which provide the basis for the financial correction agreed by the Commission did not exist since the Spanish authorities carried out the appropriate controls systematically in order to meet the requirements for support laid down in Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2) and they did so prior to the granting of the support. In addition, contrary to what was stated by the Commission in the contested decision, the Control Plan adopted by the Spanish authorities following the inspection visit did not seek to remedy a posteriori the fact that controls were not carried out, but sought exclusively to check the efficiency of those controls.










 


Second, infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with the Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission departments in determining financial corrections under Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (3) since the irregularities identified by the Commission, had they existed, which the Kingdom of Spain denies, would only justify the imposition of a financial correction proportionate to the harm which could have been caused to the Union’s funds and, therefore, less than the 5 % decided upon.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

(3)  Document C(2001) 476 of 2 March 2001.
Case C-93/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, approximation of laws, interpretation of the law








C_2010134EN.01001801.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG
(Case C-93/10)
2010/C 134/27
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Finanzamt Essen-NordOst

Respondent: GFKL Financial Services AG

Questions referred







1.


For the interpretation of Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC):
Does the sale (purchase) of defaulted debts constitute, on account of the assumption of responsibility for debt recovery and the risk of loss, a service for consideration and an economic activity on the part of the purchaser of the debts even if the purchase price






—


is not based on the face value of the debts, with a flat-rate reduction agreed for the assumption of responsibility for debt recovery and the risk of loss, but










—


is set by reference to the risk of loss estimated for the debt concerned, with only secondary importance attached to the recovery of the debt compared to the reduction for the risk of loss?














2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, for the interpretation of Article 13B(d)(2) and (3) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC):






(a)


Is the assumption of the risk of loss by the purchaser of defaulted debts at a purchase price significantly lower than their face value exempt from tax, as being the provision of a different security or guarantee?










(b)


If the assumption of the risk is exempt from tax, is the recovery of the debts exempt from tax, as part of a single service or as an ancillary service, or taxable as a separate service?














3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative and no exempt service has been supplied, for the interpretation of Article 11A(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC):
Is the consideration for the taxable service determined by the recovery costs presumed by the parties or by the actual recovery costs?
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, Slovakia, State aid, control of State aid, financial institution








C_2010040EN.01000101.xml










17.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 40/01






Date of adoption of the decision


8.12.2009




Reference number of State Aid


N 392/09




Member State


Slovakia




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Slovenská rekapitalizačná a záručná schéma




Legal basis


Zákon o opatreniach na zmiernenie vplyvov globálnej finančnej krízy na bankový sektor a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy




Form of aid


Direct grant, Guarantee




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 3 464 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


2009-2010




Economic sectors


Financial intermediation




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministerstvo financií SR




Štefanovičova 5




817 82 Bratislava




SLOVENSKO/SLOVAKIA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm






Date of adoption of the decision


17.12.2009




Reference number of State Aid


N 674/09




Member State


Finland




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Prolongation of the guarantee scheme for bank’s funding in Finland




Legal basis


Government Bill on State Guarantee for deposit banks and mortgage banks




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 17 000 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


1.1.2010-30.6.2010




Economic sectors


Financial intermediation




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance




Snellmaninkatu 1 A




P.O. BOX 28




FI-00023 Helsinki, Government




SUOMI/FINLAND








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5750 — WABCO/Würth/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, product safety, roadworthiness tests








C_2010040EN.01001601.xml










17.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5750 — WABCO/Würth/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 40/06






1.


On 8 February 2010, 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 WABCO Europe BVBA (‘WABCO Europe’, Belgium) belonging to the WABCO group (‘WABCO’, United States) and RuC Holding GmbH (‘RuC Holding’, Austria) belonging to the Würth group (‘Würth’, Austria) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking WABCO Würth Workshop Services GmbH (‘WWWS’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


WABCO: safety and control systems for commercial vehicles,










—


Würth: fixing and assembly materials,










—


WWWS: supplier of multi-brand diagnostics systems for commercial vehicles.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (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), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5750 — WABCO/Würth/JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010 ( OJ L 330, 16.12.2009 )
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Baltic Sea, authorised catch, catch quota, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing regulations, fishing rights, sea fish








L_2010042EN.01002001.xml










17.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 42/20







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 of 20 November 2009 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 330 of 16 December 2009
)

On page 7, Annex I, table concerning Atlantic salmon, entry concerning Lithuania:
for:

               ‘
               5 594 (1)’,
read:

               ‘
               4 559 (1)’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010040EN.01000401.xml










17.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 February 2010
2010/C 40/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3649




JPY


Japanese yen


122,68




DKK


Danish krone


7,4430




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87050




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8770




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4678




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0520




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,028




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


272,37




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7086




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0135




RON


Romanian leu


4,1134




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0649




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5229




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4264




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6062




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9419




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9205




KRW


South Korean won


1 571,65




ZAR


South African rand


10,5360




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3264




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2930




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 712,64




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6753




PHP


Philippine peso


62,934




RUB


Russian rouble


41,1587




THB


Thai baht


45,320




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5312




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6140




INR


Indian rupee


63,0745






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