do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-89/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 17 February 2010 — Q-Beef NV v Belgische Staat
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, tax law








C_2010113EN.01002501.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 17 February 2010 — Q-Beef NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-89/10)
2010/C 113/39
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Q-Beef NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Does Community law preclude national courts from applying the limitation period of five years, which is laid down in the internal legal system in respect of debts owed by the State, to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid to a Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, and which were paid before the entry into force of a new system of aid and compulsory contributions which replaces the first system, and which, by a final decision of the Commission, was declared compatible with Community law, but not in so far as those charges were imposed retroactively in respect of a period prior to the date of that decision?










2.


Does Community law preclude a Member State from successfully invoking national limitation periods which, in comparison with those applicable under ordinary national law, are particularly favourable to that Member State, as a defence against proceedings instituted against it by a private individual with a view to vindicating that private individual’s rights under the EC Treaty, in a case such as that before the national court, in which the effect of those particularly favourable national limitation periods is to render impossible the recovery of charges which were paid to the Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, where the conflict with Community law was established by the then Court of Justice of the European Communities only after the particularly favourable national limitation periods had expired, even if the illegality had existed earlier?
Case T-95/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Cindu Chemicals 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.01006501.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/65





Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Cindu Chemicals and others v ECHA
(Case T-95/10)
2010/C 113/97
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Cindu Chemicals BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands), 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 low;










—


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 low (CAS Number 90640-82-7) (‘anthracene oil (low)’) 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 (low) 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, anthracene low as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic, mutagenic 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)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5806 — KKR/Pets at Home) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: domestic animal, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, merger control, miscellaneous industries, provision of services, retail selling








C_2010040EN.01001701.xml










17.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5806 — KKR/Pets at Home)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 40/07






1.


On 10 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 undertaking KKR & Co. L. P. (‘KKR & Co.’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Pets at Home Limited (‘Pets at Home’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR & Co.: The provision of a broad range of alternative asset management services and capital market solutions,










—


for Pets at Home: Retail supply of pet-related products, such as pet foods, pet accessories, the sale of small pets, pet grooming and other ancillary pet services and veterinary services.














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.5806 — KKR/Pets at Home, 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’).
Case C-91/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2010 — VAV Autovermietung GmbH v Inspector of the Revenue Department, Customs-South, Rosendaal office
Date: 2010-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, vehicle registration, vehicle tax








C_2010113EN.01002601.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2010 — VAV Autovermietung GmbH v Inspector of the Revenue Department, Customs-South, Rosendaal office
(Case C-91/10)
2010/C 113/41
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Breda

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VAV Autovermietung GmbH

Defendant: Inspector of the Revenue Department, Customs-South, Rosendaal office

Questions referred







1.


Does Community law, in particular the principle of the freedom to provide services, as laid down in Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 to 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), preclude a national legislative provision under which a person resident or established in the Netherlands who uses in the Netherlands a car registered and leased in another Member State is required, upon the commencement of use with that vehicle of the road network in the Netherlands, to pay a tax, whereby initially the full amount of tax is claimed and, subsequently, after the vehicle ceases to use the Netherlands road network, there is a refund of the excess amount of tax, without interest, as a result of which the amount owed and paid corresponds on balance to the period of use in the Netherlands?










2.


If such legislation must be regarded as a restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services, as laid down in Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 to 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), is a justificatory ground therefor to be found in the equal treatment of all cars present in the Netherlands, together with the attendant and consequent prevention of misuse and/or prevention of reverse discrimination of both national lessors and their customers, since the tax has to be paid in full even in the case of domestic leasing?