do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Block and Others and Knaul and Others v Commission
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, civil servant, personnel administration, promotion








C_2010317EN.01005002.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/50





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Block and Others and Knaul and Others v Commission
(Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05) (1)

()
2010/C 317/91
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005, p. 33 and p. 36.
Case C-453/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov lodged on 16 September 2010 — Jana Pereničová, Vladislav Perenič v S.O.S. financ, spol. sro
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer protection, contract, goods and services, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, unfair terms of contract








C_2010328EN.01001502.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov lodged on 16 September 2010 — Jana Pereničová, Vladislav Perenič v S.O.S. financ, spol. sro
(Case C-453/10)
()
2010/C 328/28
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Jana Pereničová, Vladislav Perenič

Defendant: S.O.S. financ, spol. sro

Questions referred







1.


Is the scope of consumer protection under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) such as to make it possible, where unfair contractual clauses are found in a consumer contract, to conclude that the contract as a whole is not binding on the consumer, if that is more advantageous to the consumer?










2.


Are the criteria determining what is an unfair commercial practice in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business to consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council such as to permit the conclusion that, if a supplier quotes in the contract a lower annual percentage rate (APR) than is in fact the case, it is possible to regard that step by the supplier towards the consumer as an unfair commercial practice? If there is a finding of an unfair commercial practice, does Directive 2005/29/EC permit there to be any impact on the validity of a credit agreement and on the achievement of the objective in Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, if invalidity of the contract is more advantageous for the consumer?






(1)  OJ L 112, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 149, p. 22.
Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The situation of the Roma in the European Union’
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, European Union, European social policy, Roma, anti-discriminatory measure, ethnic group, protection of minorities, rights of minorities, social integration, socioeconomic conditions








C_2011048EN.01000101.xml










15.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/1





Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The situation of the Roma in the European Union’
2011/C 48/01
At the plenary session held on 15-16 September 2010 (meeting of 16 September 2010), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following resolution by 151 votes to 22 with 28 abstentions.






1.


The Committee strongly condemns discriminatory actions against the Roma or any ethnic minority groups.










2.


The EESC has always strived to defend the fundamental rights of all people living in the European Union and to oppose all forms of discrimination directed at national minorities, as well as racism and xenophobia. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the regulatory and policy framework for such efforts and the instruments to implement them.










3.


Moreover, the Committee has always strongly supported the right of all Union citizens and their families to move and reside freely, in accordance with EU law.










4.


The Committee has always called forcefully for active social inclusion policies in favour of minorities and migrants, in particular the Roma.










5.


Furthermore, the EESC wishes to express its commitment to the principle of the rule of law, according to which the responsibility for any act, including possible criminal acts, must always be individual responsibility.










6.


The Committee, aware that the problems associated with the integration of the Roma are primarily a matter for the Member States concerned, nevertheless stresses the responsibility of the EU under the new treaty and the need to find a response at EU level, both to take into account the specific circumstances of the Roma populations and to ensure equal treatment throughout EU territory.










7.


The Committee actively advocates the economic and social integration of the Roma population, like that of other minorities and migrants, and proposes to the EU institutions the establishment of a comprehensive strategy which is credible to the Member States in order to bring about genuine integration based on the common rights and obligations of all EU citizens. Such a strategy must be built in a participatory way by involving Roma communities and be supported by funding which is consistent with and appropriate to the major challenges at hand.





Brussels, 16 September 2010.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI



The secretary-general of the European Economic and Social Committee

Martin WESTLAKE
Case T-423/10: Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Redaelli Tecna v Commission
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, legal expenses








C_2010317EN.01003601.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/36





Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Redaelli Tecna v Commission
(Case T-423/10)
()
2010/C 317/65
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Redaelli Tecna SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Zaccà, M. Todino and E. Cruellas Sada, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that Redaelli participated in the cartel referred to in the decision throughout the period 1984-1992.










—


Annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected Redaelli’s request for leniency and, consequently, grant an appropriate reduction in the amount of the fine, on account of the cooperation given by Redaelli in the Commission’s investigation by means of that request.










—


Further reduce, on ground of equity, the fine imposed on Redaelli by way of compensation for the unreasonable length of the procedure.





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 Commission committed a serious infringement of the principle of equal treatment by applying stricter standards only to Redaelli and refusing to grant it leniency, which, conversely, was granted to other undertakings whose requests for leniency contributed little in terms of ‘added value’, and considerably less than the added value contributed by the applicant. In so doing, the Commission also infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations because, essentially, it disregarded the applicant’s legitimate expectation that its own request would be assessed in the light of the criteria developed in the Commission’s practice at the time of the request, which were laid down in the 2002 Notice.










—


The Commission claimed incorrectly that the parties were involved in the cartel during the period 1984-1992 but has failed to adduce sufficient evidence concerning the existence of the cartel throughout the period in question.










—


The unreasonable length of the administrative procedure adversely affected the applicant’s rights of defence, as a result of which it was required to obtain exculpatory evidence after it had ceased to be available, and also had a negative impact on the actual assessment of the applicant’s request for leniency.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010249EN.01000101.xml










16.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 September 2010
2010/C 249/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2989




JPY


Japanese yen


111,04




DKK


Danish krone


7,4471




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83550




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1950




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3019




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8970




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,615




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


281,82




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7090




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9357




RON


Romanian leu


4,2475




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9398




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3863




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3335




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0888




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7753




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7375




KRW


South Korean won


1 506,00




ZAR


South African rand


9,2089




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,7574




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2820




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 654,04




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0493




PHP


Philippine peso


57,510




RUB


Russian rouble


40,1000




THB


Thai baht


40,071




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2215




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6603




INR


Indian rupee


60,2050






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, business lease, control of State aid, disclosure of information








C_2010249EN.01000401.xml










16.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/4





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
2010/C 249/05
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


27 January 2010




Case number


:


66375




EFTA State


:


Norway




Type of measure


:


n.a.




Economic sectors


:


Lease of premises/Supermarket




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Lavangen kommune




Postboks 83




9358 Tennevoll




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5968 — Advent/Bain Capital/RBS Worldpay)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, provision of services, venture capital








C_2010249EN.01002601.xml










16.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/26





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5968 — Advent/Bain Capital/RBS Worldpay)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 249/11






1.


On 9 September 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which certain funds managed and/or advised by Advent International Corporation (‘Advent’, USA) and certain funds controlled by Bain Capital Investors, LLC (‘Bain Capital’, USA), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over the merchant payment services business of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and its affiliates (‘RBS WorldPay’, UK) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Advent: private equity investment firm,










—


Bain CapitaI: private equity investment firm,










—


RBS WorldPay: provision of merchant payment services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5968 — Advent/Bain Capital/RBS Worldpay, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, disclosure of information, energy production








C_2010249EN.01000601.xml










16.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/6





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
2010/C 249/07
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption


:


10 February 2010




Case number


:


62229




EFTA State


:


Norway




Type of measure


:


n.a.




Economic sectors


:


Electricity delivery contract




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Nord-Trøndelag Fylkeskommune




Fylkets Hus




3335 Steinkjer




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Commission Regulation (EU) No 820/2010 of 16 September 2010 fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 464/2010
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, Spain, award of contract, import, originating product, sorghum, tariff reduction, third country








L_2010245EN.01003301.xml










17.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 245/33








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 820/2010
of 16 September 2010
         
fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 464/2010


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 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EU) No 464/2010 (2).












(2)


Under Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3), the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.












(3)


A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For tenders lodged from 27 August to 16 September 2010 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EU) No 464/2010, the maximum reduction in the duty on sorghum imported shall be EUR 6,49/t for a total maximum quantity of 44 000 t.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 September 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 129, 28.5.2010, p. 62.

(3)  
            OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 57.
State aid — Decision to close an existing aid case as a result of acceptance of appropriate measures by an EFTA State
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, disclosure of information, means of communication








C_2010249EN.01000501.xml










16.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/5





State aid — Decision to close an existing aid case as a result of acceptance of appropriate measures by an EFTA State
2010/C 249/06







Date of adoption of the decision


:


3 February 2010




Case number


:


48095




EFTA State


:


Norway




Title


:


Financing of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (Norsk Rikskringkasting — NRK)




Legal basis


:


Act No 127 of 4 December 1992 on Broadcasting (Lov om kringkasting), last amended by Act No 92 of 19 June 2009, entry into force on 1 July 2009




Objective


:


Compensation for the services of general economic interest




Form of aid


:


Para-fiscal levy, tax exemption




Economic sectors


:


Media




Other information


:


Based on measures undertaken and further commitments given by the Norwegian authorities to amend the current financing regime of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, the Authority’s concerns regarding the incompatibility of NRK’s financing were dispelled and the investigation closed




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case F-103/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Blank and Others v Commission
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, civil servant, personnel administration, promotion








C_2010317EN.01005101.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/51





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Blank and Others v Commission
(Case F-103/06) (1)

()
2010/C 317/94
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 35.
Case F-90/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Ernotte v Commission
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, cardiovascular disease, civil servant, damage, indemnification, personnel administration








C_2010317EN.01005102.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/51





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Ernotte v Commission
(Case F-90/09) (1)

()
2010/C 317/95
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following an amicable settlement.


(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010, p. 41.
Case T-426/10: Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA v Commission
Date: 2010-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, fine, legal expenses, liability








C_2010317EN.01003702.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/37





Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA v Commission
(Case T-426/10)
()
2010/C 317/68
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel;










—


or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;










—


an order that the Commission should pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision that is the subject of these proceedings is the same as that challenged in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal v Commission.
The applicant specifically alleges:






—


misapplication of Article 101 TFEU so far as concerns the attribution of liability to MRT by reason of the alleged infringement of that article given that, on the one hand, it was not MRT but TYCSA (PSC) that was responsible for the supposed participation of TYCSA S.L. in the conduct described in the decision and, on the other, TYCSA S.L. did not form part of an economic entity with GSW/TYCSA. There are, therefore, no grounds for attributing to MRT any liability for the conduct of TYCSA S.L. and TYCSA PSC.










—


commission of errors of fact and of law in assessing the conduct at issue, for the European Commission erred when it considered that all the agreements and meetings, taken as a whole, which took place in various Member States at different times, with different participants and different aims, constituted a single continuous infringement contrary to Article 101 TFEU. Moreover, the agreements identified do not amount to a coherent whole intended to attain a single aim;










—


alternatively, the applicant seeks annulment or reduction of the fine for failure to observe the principles of proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactive effect and legal certainty, because the guidelines of 1998 were not applied in the computing of the fines, certain mitigating circumstances were not taken into account and because of infringement of the right to a fair hearing and lack of reasoning.