do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Regulation (EU) No 168/2010 of 1 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU relations, Iraq, UN resolution, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural gas, petroleum, petroleum product, trading operation




L_2010051EN.01000101.xml










2.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/1








            COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 168/2010
of 1 March 2010
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215(1) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2010/128/CFSP of 1 March 2010 amending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq (1),


Having regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


In line with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1483 (2003), Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq (2) made specific arrangements as regards payments for petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas exported from Iraq, whereas Article 10 of that Regulation made specific arrangements concerning immunity from legal proceedings of certain Iraqi assets. These specific arrangements applied until 31 December 2008.












(2)


UNSC Resolution 1859 (2008) provided that both specific arrangements should be extended until 31 December 2009. In accordance with Council Common Position 2009/175/CFSP (3), Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 was amended accordingly by means of Regulation (EC) No 175/2009 (4).












(3)


UNSC Resolution 1905 (2009) provided that both specific arrangements should be further extended until 31 December 2010. In accordance with Decision 2010/128/CFSP, it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 accordingly.












(4)


In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:

‘3.   Articles 2 and 10 shall apply until 31 December 2010.’



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 March 2010.


For the Council


The President

D. LÓPEZ GARRIDO
            





(1)  See page 22 of this Official Journal.

(2)  
            OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 6.

(3)  
            OJ L 62, 6.3.2009, p. 28.

(4)  
            OJ L 62, 6.3.2009, p. 1.
Case T-112/10: Action brought on 1 March 2010 — Prionics v Commission and EFSA
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European Food Safety Authority, action for annulment (EU), bovine spongiform encephalopathy, pharmaceutical product, scientific report








C_2010113EN.01007301.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/73





Action brought on 1 March 2010 — Prionics v Commission and EFSA
(Case T-112/10)
2010/C 113/107
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Prionics AG (represented by: H. Janssen and M. Franz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought







—


annul the ‘Scientific Opinion on Analytical sensitivity of approved TSE rapid tests’ of EFSA and the Commission, in so far as that opinion does not currently recommend the use of two tests manufactured by the applicant, the Prionicsâ-Check LIA and the Prionicsâ-Check PrioSTRIP, for monitoring BSE;










—


order EFSA and the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging EFSA’s Scientific Opinion of 10 December 2009 on Analytical sensitivity of approved TSE rapid tests (‘the EFSA Opinion’). That opinion recommends inter alia that the analytical sensitivity of two test systems manufactured by the applicant for BSE (Prionics®-Check LIA and Prionics®-Check PrioSTRIP) be re-assessed by appropriate experiments.
The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its action.
In its first plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration on the ground that the defendants base their recommendation in the EFSA Opinion on an incorrect assessment of the facts and on contradictory data.
In its second plea, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principle that the right to be heard must be granted in procedures which may result in measures having an adverse effect on a party. In that connection, the applicant furthermore alleges an infringement of the general legal principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations on the ground that, contrary to its own published administrative provisions, EFSA did not grant the applicant the right to be heard prior to publication of the EFSA Opinion.
In its third plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the general legal principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations on the ground that, contrary to its own published administrative provisions, EFSA provided no information in its opinion on the possibility of lodging an appeal against that opinion.
In its final plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the fundamental right of freedom to pursue a professional activity and the fundamental right of freedom to conduct a business on the ground that the EFSA Opinion was published without any consideration of the harmful consequences for the applicant.
Case T-105/10: Action brought on 1 March 2010 — BASF v Commission
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), agricultural product, chemical product, economic concentration, plastics








C_2010113EN.01007002.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/70





Action brought on 1 March 2010 — BASF v Commission
(Case T-105/10)
2010/C 113/104
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag, J. Blockx and T. Wilson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Commission in the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)10568 of 18 December 2009 in Case No. COMP/M.5355 — BASF/Ciba rejecting the proposal of 6 November 2009 to approve Roquette Frères as purchaser of Divestment Business SDA and rejecting the request to modify the commitments subject to which the Commission declared, by its decision C(2009) 1961 of 12 March 2009, the operation by which the applicant acquires control of the whole CIBA Holding AG (‘Ciba’) compatible with the common market.
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its application for annulment.
It claims, in the first place, that by rejecting the proposed purchaser the defendant violated Article 6(2) of the Regulation No 139/2004 (1), paragraphs 418 and 419 of the decision approving BASF’s acquisition of Ciba, clause 4(a)(b), 13, 14 and 34 and Schedule B of the commitments attached thereto and paragraphs 31, 48, 73 and 102 of the remedies notice (2).
In particular, the applicant argues that the defendant has based its rejection of the proposed purchaser on inaccurate facts and has committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the incentive for Roquette Frères to maintain and develop the Divestment Business. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the defendant has relied on inaccurate facts and committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the applicant’s request to modify the commitments according to the review clause of the commitments.
Secondly, the applicant claims that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since, in the applicant’s opinion, the rejection of its proposal was not necessary to achieve the purpose of the commitments to avoid the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.
Thirdly, the applicant claims that the defendant violated the principle of sound administration and Article 296 TFEU by failing to hear the applicant before taking the contested decision and by failing to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation), OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1


(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2004 L 133, p. 1
2010/134/: Commission Decision of 1 March 2010 amending Decision 2006/473/EC as regards the recognition of continental Australia as being free from Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to Citrus) (notified under document C(2010) 1063)
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Australia, citrus fruit, parasitology, plant disease, plant health control, plant health legislation








L_2010053EN.01001001.xml










4.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 53/10








            COMMISSION DECISION
         
of 1 March 2010
         
amending Decision 2006/473/EC as regards the recognition of continental Australia as being free from Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to Citrus)
(notified under document C(2010) 1063)
(2010/134/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular point 16.2 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By Commission Decision 2006/473/EC of 5 July 2006 recognising certain third countries and certain areas of third countries as being free from Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to Citrus), Cercospora angolensis Carv. et Mendes and Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus) (2) New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria in Australia are recognised as being free from Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to Citrus).












(2)


Australia has submitted detailed technical information, based on results of the disease management and eradication programmes and of multiannual official surveys, showing that an outbreak of Xanthomonas campestris in Queensland was successfully eradicated and that the Northern Territory and Western Australia were free from Xanthomonas campestris. The freedom from that harmful organism should therefore be recognised for all citrus-growing areas of continental Australia.












(3)


Decision 2006/473/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 1(2) of Decision 2006/473/EC, point (a) is replaced by the following:






‘(a)


Australia: New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia;’.






Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 1 March 2010.


For the Commission

John DALLI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 187, 8.7.2006, p. 35.
Case T-196/09: Order of the General Court of 1 March 2010 — TerreStar Europe v Commission
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, appeal, disclosure of information, infringement of EU law, satellite navigation








C_2010113EN.01007804.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/78





Order of the General Court of 1 March 2010 — TerreStar Europe v Commission
(Case T-196/09) (1)

2010/C 113/115

Language of the case: English

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


(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 171/2010 of 1 March 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mela di Valtellina (PGI))
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, location of production, product designation, stone fruit








L_2010051EN.01000901.xml










2.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/9








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 171/2010
of 1 March 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mela di Valtellina (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Mela di Valtellina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 March 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 148, 30.6.2009, p. 20.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Mela di Valtellina (PGI)
Case C-112/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium), lodged on 1 March 2010 — Procureur-Generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen v Zaza Retail BV [Philippe and Cécile Noelmans, administrators in the winding-up of Zaza Retail BV (Belgium)]; voluntary intervener: Zaza Retail BV [Manon Cordewener, administrator in the winding-up of Zaza Retail BV (Netherlands)]
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU law, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings, national law








C_2010113EN.01003301.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/33





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium), lodged on 1 March 2010 — Procureur-Generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen v Zaza Retail BV [Philippe and Cécile Noelmans, administrators in the winding-up of Zaza Retail BV (Belgium)]; voluntary intervener: Zaza Retail BV [Manon Cordewener, administrator in the winding-up of Zaza Retail BV (Netherlands)]
(Case C-112/10)
2010/C 113/51
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings








Appellant


:


Procureur-Generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen




Respondent


:


Zaza Retail BV
[Philippe and Cécile Noelmans, administrators in the winding-up of Zaza Retail BV (Belgium)]




Voluntary intervener


:


Zaza Retail BV
[Manon Cordewener, administrator in the winding-up of Zaza Retail BV (Netherlands)]





Questions referred







1.


Does the term ‘the conditions laid down’ in Article 3(4)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) also cover conditions relating to the capacity or the interest of a person — such as the public prosecution service of another Member State — to request the opening of insolvency proceedings, or do those conditions relate only to the substantive conditions for being made subject to such proceedings?










2.


Can the term ‘creditor’ in Article 3(4)(b) of Regulation No 1346/2000 be interpreted broadly to mean that a national authority which, under the law of the Member State to which it belongs, has power to request the opening of insolvency proceedings and acts in the public interest and as the representative of all the creditors, may also, in the present case, validly request the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of that regulation?










3.


If the term ‘creditor’ can also refer to a national authority with the power to request the opening of insolvency proceedings, does the application of Article 3(4)(b) of Regulation No 1346/2000 require that national authority to demonstrate that it is acting in the interests of creditors who themselves have their domicile, habitual residence or registered office in the country of that national authority?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2010 of 1 March 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2010051EN.01001601.xml










2.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/16








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 174/2010
of 1 March 2010
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


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 2 March 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 March 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

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 


IL 


114,6 




JO 


80,4 




MA 


102,8 




TN 


131,7 




TR 


127,4 




ZZ 


111,4 




0707 00 05 


EG 


216,8 




JO 


152,5 




MK 


147,9 




TR 


151,6 




ZZ 


167,2 




0709 90 70 


MA 


136,3 




TR 


109,7 




ZZ 


123,0 




0709 90 80 


EG 


51,3 




ZZ 


51,3 




0805 10 20 


EG 


44,1 




IL 


57,7 




MA 


49,2 




TN 


58,9 




TR 


54,2 




ZZ 


52,8 




0805 50 10 


EG 


76,3 




IL 


76,3 




MA 


68,6 




TR 


66,0 




ZZ 


71,8 




0808 10 80 


CA 


65,9 




CN 


68,2 




MK 


24,7 




US 


107,2 




ZZ 


66,5 




0808 20 50 


AR 


79,9 




CL 


80,8 




CN 


42,0 




US 


95,0 




ZA 


99,3 




ZZ 


79,4 






(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’.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 172/2010 of 1 March 2010 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Prekmurska gibanica (TSG))
Date: 2010-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, biscuit factory, brand name, confectionery product, product designation








L_2010051EN.01001101.xml










2.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/11








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 172/2010
of 1 March 2010
         
entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Prekmurska gibanica (TSG))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, and pursuant to Article 19(3) of the same Regulation, the application submitted by Slovenia to register the name ‘Prekmurska gibanica’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register.












(3)


The application also requested protection under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006. That protection should be granted to the name ‘Prekmurska gibanica’ in so far as, in the absence of objections, it could not be demonstrated that the name is used in a lawful, renowned and economically significant manner for similar agricultural products or foodstuffs,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.
Protection as referred to in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 shall apply.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 March 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 138, 18.6.2009, p. 9.




ANNEX
Foodstuffs referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 509/2006:

Class 2.3.   Confectionery, bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other baker’s wares

SLOVENIA
Prekmurska gibanica (TSG)
The use of the name is reserved.