do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-234/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 859 — External transit procedure — Authorised consignor — Creation of a customs debt — Transit document relating to non-existent goods)
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs regulations, free movement of goods, import policy, interpretation of the law, transit








C_2010246EN.01000901.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
(Case C-234/09) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 859 - External transit procedure - Authorised consignor - Creation of a customs debt - Transit document relating to non-existent goods)
2010/C 246/14
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 1, 4(9) and (10), 92, 96 and 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Authorised consignor generating by mistake two transit documents for the same consignment of goods in the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS), thus assigning two different movement reference numbers to a single consignment — Customs debt arising following the impossibility of discharging the external Community transit procedure by presenting the goods to the customs office of destination — Charging of customs duty on goods which have been declared but do not physically exist

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as not applying to a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, where an authorised consignor generated by mistake two external transit procedures for one and the same consignment of goods, because the goods covered by the extra procedure do not exist and, as a consequence, that procedure cannot entail the creation of a customs debt pursuant to the above provision.


(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
Corrigendum to the Council Decision of 19 April 2010 appointing the Italian members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work ( OJ C 110, 29.4.2010 )
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Italy, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, occupational health, occupational safety








C_2010191EN.01002501.xml










15.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/25





Corrigendum to the Council Decision of 19 April 2010 appointing the Italian members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 110 of 29 April 2010
)

2010/C 191/12
In the title of the Decision on the cover page and in the title and concluding formula on page 2:
for:

‘19 April 2010’,

read:

‘26 April 2010’;

On page 2, signature:
for:

‘E. SALGADO’,

read:

‘M. Á. MORATINOS’.
Commission Opinion of 15 July 2010 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the COMURHEX II conversion facility, located at Pierrelatte in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, health risk, radioactive effluent, radioactive pollution, radioactive waste, storage of waste, waste management








C_2010192EN.01000101.xml










16.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/1





COMMISSION OPINION
of 15 July 2010
relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the COMURHEX II conversion facility, located at Pierrelatte in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
(Only the French text is authentic)
2010/C 192/01
On 6 January 2010, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the COMURHEX II conversion facility.
On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 5 February 2010 and provided by the French authorities on 4 March 2010, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:






1.


The distance between the facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is 170 km.










2.


Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State.










3.


Solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before being transferred to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in France.










4.


In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.




In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the COMURHEX II conversion facility located at Pierrelatte in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 15 July 2010.


For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission
Case C-512/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/66/EC — Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, electricity storage device, environmental protection, marketing, marketing restriction, waste management








C_2010246EN.01001302.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/13





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-512/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/66/EC - Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
2010/C 246/21
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Dimitriou and A. Margeli, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, p.1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










2.


orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
Case C-582/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value-added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 169 to 171 — Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC — Article 2 — Refund — Taxable person not established in the European Union — Insurance transactions — Financial transactions)
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, tax system








C_2010246EN.01000401.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-582/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 169 to 171 - Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC - Article 2 - Refund - Taxable person not established in the European Union - Insurance transactions - Financial transactions)
2010/C 246/05
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao and S. Hathaway, acting as Agents, and K. Lasok QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 169, 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of Article 2(1) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40) — National legislation which does not permit the recovery of input tax paid in respect of certain insurance and financial transactions carried out by taxable persons not established in Community territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case C-8/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/46/EC — Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies — Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, company law, management accounting, publication of accounts








C_2010246EN.01001501.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/15





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-8/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/46/EC - Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies - Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)
2010/C 246/25
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










2.


orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid, economic recession, financial institution, financial intervention








C_2010191EN.01000101.xml










15.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 191/01






Date of adoption of the decision


31.5.2010




Reference number of State Aid


N 198/10




Member State


Ireland




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Prolongation of the Credit Institutions Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme




Legal basis


The Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 as amended




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


[…] (1)





Intensity


—




Duration (period)


1.6.2010-30.6.2010




Economic sectors


Financial intermediation




Name and address of the granting authority







The Minister, acting on behalf of the Government, in accordance with the Act. Department of Finance, Government Building




Upper Merrion Street




Dublin 2




IRELAND








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm






Date of adoption of the decision


10.6.2010




Reference number of State Aid


N 199/10




Member State


Hungary




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Közlekedési módok összekapcsolása, gazdasági központok intermodalitásának és közlekedési infrastruktúrájának fejlesztése




Legal basis


10/2008. (VIII. 1.) NFGM rendelet a Közlekedési Operatív Program 4. prioritásának első konstrukciójára vonatkozó részletes szabályokról
NFGM rendelet a Közlekedés Operatív Program 4. prioritásának első konstrukciójára vonatkozó részletes szabályokról szóló 10/2008. (VIII. 1.) NFGM rendelet módosításáról (not yet adopted)




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Sectoral development




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Annual budget: EUR 57,6 million




Intensity


85 %




Duration (period)


2010-2013




Economic sectors


Transport




Name and address of the granting authority







Nemzeti Fejlesztési Ügynökség




Budapest




Wesselényi u. 20–22.




1077




MAGYARORSZÁG/HUNGARY








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm


(1)  Confidential information.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 622/2010 of 15 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pesca di Leonforte (PGI))
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, fruit, location of production, product designation








L_2010182EN.01000101.xml










16.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 182/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 622/2010
of 15 July 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pesca di Leonforte (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 ‘Pesca di Leonforte’ 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, 15 July 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





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

(2)  
            OJ C 266, 7.11.2009, p. 17.




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
Pesca di Leonforte (PGI)
Commission Regulation (EU) No 624/2010 of 15 July 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda (PDO)]
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, fruit vegetable, location of production, product designation








L_2010182EN.01000501.xml










16.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 182/5








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 624/2010
of 15 July 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda (PDO)]


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 ‘Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda’ 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, 15 July 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





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

(2)  
            OJ C 266, 7.11.2009, p. 14.




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
Melanzana Rossa di Rotonda (PDO)
Case C-354/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Community Customs Code — Article 33 — Value of goods for customs purposes — Inclusion of the customs duties — Delivery term ‘Delivered Duty Paid’ )
Date: 2010-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs duties, customs regulations, import, interpretation of the law








C_2010246EN.01001101.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/11





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-354/09) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 33 - Value of goods for customs purposes - Inclusion of the customs duties - Delivery term ‘Delivered Duty Paid’)
2010/C 246/17
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gaston Schul BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Interpretation of Article 33(1)(f) and Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value — Contract containing the term of delivery ‘Delivered Duty Paid’ concluded on the assumption that no customs duties would be payable — Amount not mentioned — Exclusion from or inclusion in the customs value

Operative part of the judgment

The condition specified in Article 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, to the effect that import duties must be ‘shown separately’ from the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, is satisfied in the case where the parties to the contract have agreed that those goods are to be delivered DDP (‘Delivered Duty Paid’) and have incorporated that information in the customs declaration but, by reason of a mistake as to the preferential origin of those goods, have failed to state the amount of the import duties.


(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.