do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-1/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Unlawful aid declared compatible with the common market — Annulment of the Commission decision — National courts — Application for recovery of unlawfully implemented aid — Proceedings stayed pending the adoption of a new Commission decision — Exceptional circumstances liable to limit the obligation to repay)
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, judge, judgment of the Court (EU), press, publishing








C_2010113EN.01001302.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition
(Case C-1/09) (1)

(State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Unlawful aid declared compatible with the common market - Annulment of the Commission decision - National courts - Application for recovery of unlawfully implemented aid - Proceedings stayed pending the adoption of a new Commission decision - Exceptional circumstances liable to limit the obligation to repay)
2010/C 113/18
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

Defendant: Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — State aid — Export aid in the book trade — Obligation to repay aid unlawfully put into effect — Possibility of suspending repayment of the aid pending a final decision of the Commission on the compatibility of the aid with the Treaty — Admissibility of the obligation to repay the aid being limited on the ground of an exceptional circumstance

Operative part of the judgment







1.


A national court before which an application has been brought, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, for repayment of unlawful State aid may not stay the adoption of its decision on that application until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled on the compatibility of the aid with the common market following the annulment of a previous positive decision;










2.


The adoption by the Commission of the European Communities of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible with the common market, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, is not, in itself, capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient’s obligation to repay that aid, in the case where that aid was implemented contrary to Article 88(3) EC.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case C-129/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia v Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, maritime cabotage, maritime transport








C_2010134EN.01002601.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia v Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias
(Case C-129/10)
2010/C 134/39
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia

Defendant: Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias (Minister for Mercantile Marine)

Question referred

Do the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), interpreted in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services, allow national schemes to be adopted, whereby shipowners cannot provide cabotage services without a prior administrative authorisation issued, in the context of an authorisation system aimed inter alia at ensuring verification of whether, in light of the prevailing conditions in a specific port, the schedules declared by the shipowner can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port and verification of the ability of the scheduled vessel to enter a specific port unhindered at the time declared by the shipowner as the preferred time for a specific service without, however, determination in advance in a legal rule of the criteria on the basis of which the authorities rule on such questions, especially in cases where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010060EN.01000301.xml










11.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 March 2010
2010/C 60/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3610




JPY


Japanese yen


123,16




DKK


Danish krone


7,4411




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91140




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7180




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4618




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0125




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,616




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


266,87




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7080




PLN


Polish zloty


3,8600




RON


Romanian leu


4,0950




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0933




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4855




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3969




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5606




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9262




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9036




KRW


South Korean won


1 538,99




ZAR


South African rand


10,0720




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2900




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2660




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 484,00




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5199




PHP


Philippine peso


62,128




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2815




THB


Thai baht


44,510




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4154




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1705




INR


Indian rupee


61,7660






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5707 — Tennet/E.ON) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, disclosure of information, economic concentration, management, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation, transport network








C_2010060EN.01000102.xml










11.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5707 — Tennet/E.ON)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 60/02
On 4 February 2010, 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 32010M5707. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-384/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Regional legislation laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations — Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Restriction)
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, Italy, action for annulment (EU), competition, judgment of the Court (EU), motor fuel








C_2010113EN.01001101.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano
(Case C-384/08) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Regional legislation laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations - Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Restriction)
2010/C 113/14
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Attanasio Group Srl

Defendant: Comune di Carbognano

Intervening party: Felgas Petroli Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) — Compatibility of national provisions laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside petrol stations with Articles 43, 48, 49 and 56 EC and the principles of non-discrimination.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that domestic provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which lay down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations, constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment enshrined in the EC Treaty. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that restriction does not appear to be justified by the objectives of road safety, protection of health and the environment, or the rationalisation of the service provided to users, these being matters for the national court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
2010/153/: Commission Decision of 11 March 2010 prolonging the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC requiring Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate are not placed or made available on the market (notified under document C(2010) 1337) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, chemical product, consumer protection, health risk, market approval, marketing restriction, product safety








L_2010063EN.01002101.xml










12.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 63/21








            COMMISSION DECISION
         
of 11 March 2010
         
prolonging the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC requiring Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate are not placed or made available on the market
(notified under document C(2010) 1337)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2010/153/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Decision 2009/251/EC (2) requires Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate (DMF) are not placed or made available on the market.












(2)


Decision 2009/251/EC was adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2001/95/EC, which restricts the validity of the Decision to a period not exceeding 1 year, but allows it to be confirmed for additional periods none of which shall exceed 1 year.












(3)


In the light of the experience acquired so far and the absence of a permanent measure addressing consumer products containing DMF, it is necessary to prolong the validity of Decision 2009/251/EC for 12 months and to amend it accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Directive 2001/95/EC,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The text of Article 4 of Decision 2009/251/EC is replaced by the following:
‘This Decision shall be applicable until 15 March 2011.’


Article 2
Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision by 15 March 2010 at the latest and shall publish those measures. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 11 March 2010.


For the Commission

John DALLI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.

(2)  
            OJ L 74, 20.3.2009, p. 32.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5579 — TLP/Ermewa) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, container, disclosure of information, economic concentration, hiring, merger control, organisation of transport, provision of services, rail transport, restrictive-practice authorisation, vehicle on rails








C_2010060EN.01000101.xml










11.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5579 — TLP/Ermewa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 60/01
On 22 January 2010, 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 French 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 32010M5579. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-130/10: Action brought on 11 March 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Afghanistan, Council of the European Union, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international affairs, international sanctions








C_2010134EN.01002602.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/26





Action brought on 11 March 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-130/10)
2010/C 134/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Perillo, K. Bradley, A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 (1) of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2) imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban;










—


Order that the effects of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 be maintained until it is replaced;










—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban is invalid for the following reasons:






—


having regard to its aim and content, the correct legal basis for the Regulation is Article 75 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


in the alternative, the conditions for recourse to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union were not fulfilled, because no proposal had been validly presented, and the Council had not previously adopted a decision in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on the European Union.




Should the Court annul the contested Regulation, Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Regulation, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.


(1)  OJ L 346, p. 42

(2)  OJ L 139, p. 9
Case C-19/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(a) and (b), second indent — Provision of services — Commercial agency contract — Performance in several Member States)
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: decision, domestic trade, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), jurisdiction, provision of services








C_2010113EN.01001401.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/14





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA
(Case C-19/09) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) and (b), second indent - Provision of services - Commercial agency contract - Performance in several Member States)
2010/C 113/19
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH

Defendant: Silva Trade SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b), second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Scope — Action for payment of compensation for termination of a contract for the provision of services — Services provided under a contract in different Member States

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable in the case where services are provided in several Member States;










2.


The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that where services are provided in several Member States, the court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine all the claims arising from the contract is the court in whose jurisdiction the place of the main provision of services is situated. For a commercial agency contract, that place is the place of the main provision of services by the agent, as it appears from the provisions of the contract or, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract or, where it cannot be established on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Case C-223/09: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, electrical energy, energy grid, energy supply, investment, security of supply








C_2010148EN.01002302.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/23





Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-223/09) (1)

2010/C 148/38

Language of the case: Polish

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


(1)  OJ C 233, 26.09.2009.
Case C-128/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE v Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilias
Date: 2010-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, maritime cabotage, maritime transport, public service








C_2010134EN.01002502.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE v Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilias
(Case C-128/10)
2010/C 134/38
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE

Defendants: Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilias (Minister for Mercantile Marine)

Question referred

Do the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), interpreted in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services, allow national schemes to be adopted, whereby shipowners cannot provide cabotage services without a prior administrative authorisation, when: (a) the purpose of the authorisation system in question is to allow verification of whether, in light of the prevailing conditions in a specific port, the schedules declared by the shipowner can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port and verification of the ability of the scheduled vessel to enter a specific port unhindered at the time declared by the shipowner as the preferred time for a specific service without, however, determination in advance in a legal rule of the criteria on the basis of which the authorities rule on such questions, especially in a case where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time; (b) at the same time, the authorisation system in question constitutes a means of imposing public service obligations, inasmuch as it has in that respect the following features: (i) it applies without exception to all scheduled shipping routes to the islands, (ii) it grants the administrative authority responsible for issuing authorisations the broadest discretionary powers in terms of imposing public service obligations, without determining in advance in a legal rule the criteria for the exercise of those powers and without determining in advance the content of the public service obligations which may be imposed?