do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 433/2010 of 20 May 2010 granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, butter, export refund








L_2010125EN.01002501.xml










21.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/25








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 433/2010
of 20 May 2010
         
granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


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), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 May 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 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Case C-352/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Article 11(1)(a) — Whether applicable to transaction tax)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European company, Netherlands, international criminal law, interpretation of the law, legal process, tax system








C_2010179EN.01000501.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-352/08) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Whether applicable to transaction tax)
(2010/C 179/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.1) — Concept of tax evasion or tax avoidance — Transaction aimed at escaping a national tax not referred to in the Directive’s list of taxes which may not be levied

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States is to be interpreted as meaning that the favourable arrangements which that directive introduces may not be withheld from a taxpayer who has sought, by way of a legal stratagem involving a company merger, to avoid the levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely transaction tax, where that tax does not come within the scope of application of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.
Case C-583/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — Christos Gogos v European Commission (Appeals — Officials — Internal competition for promotion from one category to another — Appointment — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations — Unlimited jurisdiction — Dispute of a financial character — Length of proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Claim for equitable compensation)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Community, administrative competition, appeal, appointment of staff, civil servant, civil service, damage








C_2010179EN.01000802.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — Christos Gogos v European Commission
(Case C-583/08 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Internal competition for promotion from one category to another - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Unlimited jurisdiction - Dispute of a financial character - Length of proceedings before the General Court - Reasonable time - Claim for equitable compensation)
(2010/C 179/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Christos Gogos (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by P.I. Anestis, dikigoros)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-66/04 Gogos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to place the applicant in Grade A 7 when he was appointed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Gogos and the Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case C-250/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 May 2010 — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, energy-generating product, hiring, interpretation of the law, opt-out clause








C_2010234EN.01002102.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 May 2010 — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
(Case C-250/10)
()
2010/C 234/34
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Question referred

Subject to an affirmative answer to the first question referred by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) on 1 December 2009 in the proceedings for a preliminary ruling already pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union as Case C-79/10, is the person leasing or chartering out his aircraft, including the jet fuel to be provided by him, entitled to the exemption from taxation provided for in Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity? (1)



(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51
Case C-365/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 — Article 16 — Calculation of the production charge — Inclusion of the quantity of quota sugar withdrawn from the market in the basis for assessment of the charge — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU law, assessment of prices, common organisation of markets, economic discrimination, farming sector, interpretation of the law, marketing, principle of proportionality, sugar








C_2010179EN.01000502.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
(Case C-365/08) (1)

(Sugar - Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 - Article 16 - Calculation of the production charge - Inclusion of the quantity of quota sugar withdrawn from the market in the basis for assessment of the charge - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)
(2010/C 179/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 34 of the EC Treaty, especially the principles of non-discrimination, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Interpretation and validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1) — Inclusion, for the purposes of calculating the production charge, of the quota subject to preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 (OJ 2007 L 78, p. 20)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that the quantity of quota sugar withdrawn from the market pursuant to Article 19 of that regulation and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 is included in the basis for assessment of the production charge.










2.


Examination of the second question has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 16 of Regulation No 318/2006.






(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5812 — Société Lyonnaise des Eaux/Sociétés de distribution d'eau et d'assainissement (II))  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, water management, water supply, water treatment








C_2010131EN.01000101.xml










20.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5812 — Société Lyonnaise des Eaux/Sociétés de distribution d'eau et d'assainissement (II))
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 131/01
On 18 March 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 32010M5812. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-258/06: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2010 — Germany v Commission (Provisions applicable to public procurement — Contract awards not subject, or not subject in full, to the Public Procurement Directives — Interpretative communication of the Commission — Actionable measure — Measure intended to produce legal effects)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), application of EU law, award of contract, competition, public contract








C_2010179EN.01003202.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/32






Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2010 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-258/06) (1)

(Provisions applicable to public procurement - Contract awards not subject, or not subject in full, to the Public Procurement Directives - Interpretative communication of the Commission - Actionable measure - Measure intended to produce legal effects)
(2010/C 179/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues, subsequently by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Gracia, and finally by G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Fruhmann, C. Pesendorfer and C. Mayr, Agents); Republic of Poland (represented initially by E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, subsequently by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, K. Rokicka and K. Zawisza, and finally by M. Szpunar, Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: H. Sevenster, subsequently by C. Wissels and M. de Grave, and finally by C. Wissels, M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, Agents); European Parliament (represented by U. Rösslein and J. Rodrigues, Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki and M. Tassopoulou, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: Z. Bryanston-Cross, and subsequently by L. Seeboruth, Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives (OJ 2006 C 179, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament, the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 434/2010 of 20 May 2010 granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, skimmed milk powder








L_2010125EN.01002601.xml










21.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/26








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 434/2010
of 20 May 2010
         
granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


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), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 May 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 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Case C-210/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France)) — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v Ville d’Orléans (State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 14(3) — Recovery of aid — Principle of effectiveness — Assessments vitiated by a procedural defect — Annulment)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid system, application of EU law, common market, interpretation of the law, reimbursement of aid








C_2010179EN.01001302.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/13






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France)) — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v Ville d’Orléans
(Case C-210/09) (1)

(State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3) - Recovery of aid - Principle of effectiveness - Assessments vitiated by a procedural defect - Annulment)
(2010/C 179/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS

Defendant: Ville d’Orléans

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Interpretation of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Aid granted by the French authorities in favour of Scott SA and Kimberly Clark — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared incompatible with the common market — Effect on that obligation of possible annulment, on grounds of procedural defect, of the assessments issued by the national authorities for the recovery of that aid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances in which amounts corresponding to the aid in question have already been recovered, annulment by the national court of assessments issued in order to recover the unlawful State aid on grounds of there being a procedural defect, where it is possible to rectify that procedural defect under national law. That provision does, however, preclude those amounts being paid once again, even provisionally, to the beneficiary of that aid.


(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
Case T-239/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Italy, Structural Funds, action for annulment (EU)








C_2010195EN.01003102.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/31





Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-239/10)
2010/C 195/50
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, debit note No 3241001630 of 1 March 2010, received on 11 March 2010, issued by the European Commission, D.G. Regional Policy, as a consequence of Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009, notified on 23 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006.










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-223/10 Regione Puglia v Commission.