do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5854 — Total Group/HIPS & GPPS Business of Polimeri)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, plastics industry, polymer








C_2010248EN.01000102.xml










15.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5854 — Total Group/HIPS & GPPS Business of Polimeri)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 248/02
On 30 June 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 32010M5854. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (Recast)’ — COM(2010) 359 final — 2010/0194 (COD)
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: marketing standard, plant propagation, preparation for market, seed, seedling, vineyard








C_2011048EN.01016901.xml










15.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/169





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (Recast)’
COM(2010) 359 final — 2010/0194 (COD)
2011/C 48/33
On 8 July 2010 the European Parliament and on 7 September 2010 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 (2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, on the

‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (Recast)’

COM(2010)359 fin – 2010/0194 (COD).
Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions CES 807/2000 and CESE 1360/2002, adopted on 13 July 2000 (1) and on 11 December 2002 (2), it decided unanimously, at its 465th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 2010 (meeting of 15 September), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 15 September 2010.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI




(1)  ESC opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for vegetative propagation of the vine’, OJ C 268, p. 42 of 19.9.2000.

(2)  EESC opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directives 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed, 66/402/EEC on the marketing of cereal seed, 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine, 92/33/EEC on the marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed, 92/34/EEC on the marketing of propagating and planting material of fruit plants, 98/56/EC on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants, 2002/54/EC on the marketing of beet seed, 2002/55/EC on the marketing of vegetable seed, 2002/56/EC on the marketing of seed potatoes and 2002/57/EC on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants as regards Community comparative tests and trials’, OJ C 85, p. 43-44 of 8.4.2003.
Case T-422/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emme v Commission
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, legal expenses








C_2010317EN.01003502.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/35





Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emme v Commission
(Case T-422/10)
()
2010/C 317/64
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Emme Holding SpA (Pescara, Italy) (represented by: G. Visconti, E. Vassallo di Castiglione, M. Siragusa, M. Beretta and P. Ferrari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul or reduce the fine imposed by the Commission on Emme Holding by decision of 30 June 2010 (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel).










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that in Case T-385/10 ArcellorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
In particular, the applicant submits that:






—


the attribution to the applicant of a single and continuous infringement instituted by all the European cartels (Club Europa) and all the national/regional cartels (Club Italiano, Club España and the Accordo Meridionale) is unjustified. The applicant has never in fact participated (actively or passively) at European level in the alleged infringement. Similarly, Trame was unaware of any regional or national cartels operating in countries other than Italy.










—


the decision takes account of both stranded wire (7 strands) and braided wire (2-3 strands). However, the applicant submits that braided wire has never been the subject of a cartel in connection with Club Italia. The turnover generated by that product should therefore not be taken into account in calculating the fine.




The applicant also seeks a reduction of the fine, on the ground that its participation in the alleged infringement was marginal, and on account of its inability to pay.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), translation








C_2010248EN.01000601.xml










15.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/6





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
2010/C 248/05
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






—



EPSO/AD/192/10 — Danish-language (DA) lawyer-linguists










—



EPSO/AD/193/10 — German-language (DE) lawyer-linguists










—



EPSO/AD/194/10 — English-language (EN) lawyer-linguists










—



EPSO/AD/195/10 — Lithuanian-language (LT) lawyer-linguists










—



EPSO/AD/196/10 — Dutch-language (NL) lawyer-linguists










—



EPSO/AD/197/10 — Romanian-language (RO) lawyer-linguists




The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 248 A of 15 September 2010
 in Danish, German, English, Lithuanian, Dutch and Romanian only.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu
Case C-445/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, geographical information system, information network








C_2010301EN.01001702.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/17





Action brought on 15 September 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-445/10)
()
2010/C 301/25
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Egerer and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to implement 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 by failing fully to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 14 May 2009.


(1)  OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1.
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, man-made fibre, originating product, textile industry








C_2010248EN.01000701.xml










15.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/7





Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2010/C 248/06
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry




Certain finished polyester filament fabrics


People's Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 (OJ L 240, 16.9.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 364/2010 (OJ L 107, 29.4.2010, p. 6)


17.9.2010






(1)  OJ C 104, 23.4.2010, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
Case C-386/09: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Jhonny Briot v Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union (Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfer of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of employment of a temporary worker)
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labour law, temporary employment, transfer of businesses, worker consultation, worker information








C_2010346EN.01002201.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/22





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Jhonny Briot v Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union
(Case C-386/09) (1)

(Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of employment of a temporary worker)
2010/C 346/36
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jhonny Briot

Defendants: Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 2(1)(a) and (2)(c), 3(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Non-renewal of a fixed-term employment contract of a temporary agency worker on account of transfer of an undertaking — Possibility of treating a temporary employment agency or, failing that, a Community institution using the services of temporary agency workers like an ‘employer-transferor’ — Possible exclusion of temporary agency workers from the safeguards afforded by the Directive — Obligation or option on the part of the transferee of maintaining the employment relationship

Operative part of the order

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where the fixed-term employment contract of a temporary worker has ended, due to expiry of the agreed term, on a date prior to that of the transfer of the activity to which he was assigned, the non-renewal of this contract because of that transfer does not disregard the prohibition set out in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses. Thus, that temporary worker must not be regarded as still being available to the user company on the date of the transfer.


(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Case C-451/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08 M6 and TF1 v Commission
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment, advertising, audiovisual industry, infringement of EU law, television








C_2010328EN.01001501.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/15





Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08 M6 and TF1 v Commission
(Case C-451/10 P)
()
2010/C 328/27
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (represented by: J.-P Hordies, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Métropole télévision (M6), Canal +, European Commission, French Republic, France Télévisions

Form of order sought







—


declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08, M6 and TF1 v Commission;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two pleas in support of its appeal.
Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) criticises the General Court for having disregarded, confirming the Commission’s position in that respect, the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the compatibility with the common market of aid received by France Télévisions, difficulties which should have led to the initiation of a formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU. Therefore, by its first plea, the appellant relies on infringement of rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence in that the General Court requested the applicants to adduce evidence that serious doubts existed as to the actual use to which the endowment notified was put, rather than accepting the evidence that the aid had not been allocated.
By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 106(2) TFEU holding, first, that the falls in advertising revenue, even caused by management errors, could be offset by State aid and, second, by stating that the application of Article 106(2) did not require an assessment of the efficient functioning of public service.
Case T-413/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Socitrel v Commission
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, legal expenses








C_2010317EN.01003401.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/34





Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Socitrel v Commission
(Case T-413/10)
()
2010/C 317/62
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria, SA (São Romão de Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: F. Proença de Carvalho and T. de Faria, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission.

Form of order sought







—


partially annul Article 1 and Article 2 of the Commission decision of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under the terms of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing Steel) with regard to the Applicant;










—


reduce the fine;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested by the applicant is the same decision contested in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
The applicant submits to the Court:






(i)


Serious failure to state reasons in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 of the TFEU, and breach of the principle of legitimate expectation in the application of the fine, infringing the rights of defence of the applicant when calculating the fine imposed on it.










(ii)


Breach of the rights of defence of SOCITREL by virtue of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure of the European Commission, undermining the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.




Alternatively,






(iii)


Breach of Article 101 of the TFEU and manifest error of assessment in finding that SOCITREL was not operating autonomously in the market.










(iv)


The applicant also submits that the European Commission committed a manifest error by considering in the turnover, for the purposes of determining the 10 % limit of turnover applied to the calculation of fines, the combined turnover of the companies Emesa, Galycas and ITC, which did not form part of the PREVIDENTE Group at the time when the infringement was committed.










(v)


Breach of the principle of proportionality, non-discrimination and legitimate expectation when fixing the fine.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as regards the prohibition of highgrading and restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound’ — COM(2010) 325 final — 2010/0175 (COD)
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Baltic Sea, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing net, fishing regulations, technical regulations








C_2011048EN.01016801.xml










15.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/168





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as regards the prohibition of highgrading and restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound’
COM(2010) 325 final — 2010/0175 (COD)
2011/C 48/32
On 6 July 2010 the European Parliament and on 8 July 2010 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 (2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 as regards the prohibition of highgrading and restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound’

COM(2010) 325 fin – 2010/0175 (COD).
Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 465th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 2010 (meeting of 15 September), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 15 September 2010.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI
Case T-406/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galyca v Commission
Date: 2010-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01005501.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/55





Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galyca v Commission
(Case T-406/10)
()
2010/C 301/87
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Emesa-Trefilería, SA (Arteixo, Spain) and Industrias Galyca, SA (Vitoria, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the contested Decision insofar as it affects the applicants;










—


in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels. Furthermore, they seek the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on them.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
First, they claim that the Commission has violated the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in so far as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.
Second, they submit that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a reduction of their fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), since the decision relies extensively on evidence originating from Emesa.
Finally, they contend that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, although Emesa provided decisive evidence having a bearing on the duration and gravity of the infringement.


(1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3