do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the European Central Bank of 5 July 2010 on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Estonia and on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Estonia (CON/2010/52)
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: Estonia, European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, monetary union, national currency








C_2010190EN.01000101.xml










14.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/1





OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 5 July 2010
on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Estonia and on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Estonia
(CON/2010/52)
2010/C 190/01

Introduction and legal basis

On 26 May 2010 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Estonia (1). On 30 June 2010 the ECB received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Estonia (2).
The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 140(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

Observations







1.


The proposed regulations will enable the introduction of the euro as the currency of Estonia following the abrogation of Estonia’s derogation in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 140(2) of the Treaty.










2.


The ECB welcomes the proposed regulations.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 5 July 2010.


The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET




(1)  COM(2010) 240 final.

(2)  COM(2010) 341 final.
Case C-331/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Produzione SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, energy production, interpretation of the law








C_2010346EN.01002503.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Produzione SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
(Case C-331/10)
()
2010/C 346/42
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.On Produzione SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37
Case C-323/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, agricultural product nomenclature, application of EU law, export refund, interpretation of the law








C_2010274EN.01000501.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-323/10)
()
2010/C 274/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Question referred

Does a carcase in subheading 0207 12 90 (1) have to be completely drawn (= without residue), so that it is detrimental for tariff classification purposes if, after going through a mechanical gutting process, a carcase is still left, for example, with part of the guts or trachea?


(1)  OJ 1999 L 338, p. 1.
Case C-329/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — ENI SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas e Cassa Conguaglio Per il Settore Elettrico
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, energy production, interpretation of the law








C_2010346EN.01002501.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — ENI SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas e Cassa Conguaglio Per il Settore Elettrico
(Case C-329/10)
()
2010/C 346/40
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ENI SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas e Cassa Conguaglio Per il Settore Elettrico

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37
Case C-324/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, agricultural product nomenclature, application of EU law, export refund, interpretation of the law








C_2010274EN.01000601.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-324/10)
()
2010/C 274/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred







1.


Is an ‘irregular composition’ within the meaning of product code 0207 1290 9990 characterised by the fact that a maximum total number of four of the giblets there stated may be — singly or more than once — inserted inside the carcase?










2.


If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: does subheading 0207 12 10 (1) also cover carcases inside which one of the giblets stated in that subheading has been inserted more than once?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 322, p. 31.
Case C-332/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edipower SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, electrical industry, energy distribution, energy transport, interpretation of the law








C_2010346EN.01002601.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edipower SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
(Case C-332/10)
()
2010/C 346/43
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Edipower SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37
Case C-321/10: Action brought on 5 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU environmental policy, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, data processing, exchange of information, geographical information system, transport company








C_2010246EN.01002801.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/28





Action brought on 5 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-321/10)
()
2010/C 246/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), (1) or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2007/2/EC expired on 14 May 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not communicated those measures to the Commission.


(1)  OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1.
Case C-333/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Energy Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, energy production, interpretation of the law








C_2010346EN.01002602.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Energy Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
(Case C-333/10)
()
2010/C 346/44
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.On Energy Trading SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37
Case C-327/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Chebu (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechoslovakia, EU Member State, EU national, civil law, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, preliminary issue








C_2010246EN.01002901.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/29





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Chebu (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner
(Case C-327/10)
()
2010/C 246/49
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní Soud v Chebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hypoteční banka, a.s.

Defendant: Udo Mike Lindner

Questions referred







1.


If one of the parties to court proceedings is a national of a State other than the one in which those proceedings are taking place, does that fact provide a basis for the cross-border element within the meaning of Article 81 (formerly Article 65) of the Treaty, which is one of the conditions for the applicability of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’)?










2.


Does the Brussels I Regulation preclude the use of provisions of national law which enable proceedings to be brought against persons of unknown address?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the negative, can the making of submissions by a court-appointed guardian of the defendant in the case be regarded on its own as submission by the defendant to the jurisdiction of the local court for the purposes of Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation, even where the subject-matter of the dispute is a claim arising out of a consumer contract and the courts of the Czech Republic would not have jurisdiction under Article 16(2) of that regulation to determine that dispute?










4.


Can an agreement on the local jurisdiction of a particular court be regarded as establishing the international jurisdiction of the chosen court for the purposes of Article 17(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, and, if so, does that apply even if the agreement on local jurisdiction is invalid for conflict with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-330/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edison Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, electrical industry, energy distribution, energy transport, interpretation of the law








C_2010346EN.01002502.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edison Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
(Case C-330/10)
()
2010/C 346/41
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Edison Trading SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37
Case T-112/10: Order of the General Court of 5 July 2010 — Prionics v Commission and EFSA
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European Food Safety Authority, action for annulment, pharmaceutical product, scientific report








C_2010234EN.01005404.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/54





Order of the General Court of 5 July 2010 — Prionics v Commission and EFSA
(Case T-112/10) (1)

()
2010/C 234/98
Language of the case: German
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case C-328/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Enipower Spa v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
Date: 2010-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, electrical industry, energy distribution, energy transport, interpretation of the law








C_2010346EN.01002401.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Enipower Spa v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
(Case C-328/10)
()
2010/C 346/39
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Enipower Spa

Defendant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37