do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-455/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands), lodged on 17 September 2010 — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, interpretation of the law, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)








C_2010328EN.01001601.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands), lodged on 17 September 2010 — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
(Case C-455/10)
()
2010/C 328/29
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk

Respondent: Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to a worker who, after her last employment, but while in receipt of a work incapacity benefit, transfers her place of residence in a border region to a Member State other than the competent Member State?










2.


Must Article 45 TFEU and/or Article 21 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as Article 19(1)(f) of the Werkloosheidswet (Netherlands Law on unemployment), which makes the revival of entitlement to unemployment benefit conditional on the place of residence of the person concerned being within the territory of the Netherlands, even if that person lives just a short distance from the Netherlands border and is entirely focused on the Netherlands labour market, is compatible with those articles?






(1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).
Case C-456/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 17 September 2010 — Asociación Nacional De Expendedores De Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración Del Estado
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free competition, free movement of goods, import (EU), interpretation of the law, tobacco industry








C_2010328EN.01001602.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 17 September 2010 — Asociación Nacional De Expendedores De Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración Del Estado
(Case C-456/10)
()
2010/C 328/30
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asociación Nacional De Expendedores De Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT)

Defendant: Administración Del Estado

Question referred

Should Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 28 EC) be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition imposed under Spanish national law on tobacco outlet licence holders against engaging in the activity of importing manufactured tobacco products from other Member States constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect as prohibited by the Treaty?
Case C-458/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, water consumption








C_2010346EN.01002902.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/29





Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-458/10)
()
2010/C 346/48
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought







—


Declare that by failing to transpose fully and correctly Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC;










—


order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission bases its action on two grounds of complaint.
By its first ground of complaint, the Commission maintains that the transposition of points (b) and (c) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 (1) is incomplete. The national legislation does not provide that the derogation must contain ‘previous relevant monitoring results’ and does not refer to ‘the quantity of water supplied each day’, ‘the population concerned’ and ‘whether or not any relevant food-production undertaking would be affected’.
By its second ground of complaint, the Commission claims that the transposition of point (e) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 is incomplete and incorrect, since the Luxembourg authorities claim, inter alia, that, given that it is the party requesting a derogation who is responsible for defining and implementing remedial measures, it is that party who should provide a ‘summary of the plan’, a ‘timetable for the work’ and an ‘estimate of the cost’ of the measures, and not the party making the decision to grant the derogation, as required by the directive.


(1)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)
Case T-435/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — IEM Erga — Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias v Commission
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contract, project management, redemption, research expenditure (EU), research project








C_2010346EN.01004302.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/43





Action brought on 17 September 2010 — IEM Erga — Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias v Commission
(Case T-435/10)
()
2010/C 346/87
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: IEM Erga — Erevnes Meletes Perivallontos & Khorotaxias A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Sofokleous, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the preparatory act of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research of 7 May 2010 notifying the applicant of the decision to issue it with a demand for payment;










—


annul demand for payment (debit note) No 3241004968 of the European Commission;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the preparatory act of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research of 7 May 2010 notifying it of the decision to issue it with a demand for payment and the annulment of demand for payment (debit note) No 3241004968 of 14 July 2010 which was issued under Contract FAIR-CT98-9544.
In support of its pleas, the applicant puts forward the following grounds:






—


lack of lawful basis and lack of competence inasmuch as the contested measures, which were adopted in the context of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, are administrative measures adopted without a lawful basis and without competence, because that contract, which is governed, pursuant to Article 10 thereof, exclusively by Greek law, does not grant the Commission the right to determine unilaterally and recover autonomously its claims arising from the contract;










—


lack of lawful reasoning, lack of proof and denial of the Commission’s assertions inasmuch as, as is shown by the General Court’s judgment in Case T-7/05 and the invoices issued by the applicant for the supply of services, the sums which the applicant received from Parthenon A.E. in respect of those invoices constituted part of its remuneration for the supply of the services set out in the invoices and not an advance payment which Parthenon A.E. had received from the Commission as the applicant’s representative;










—


conrtradictory reasoning in the contested measures;










—


lack of lawful reasoning and lack of proof inasmuch as the arguments by which the Commission justifies the contested measures are not demonstrated either by the grounds of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-7/05 Commission v Parthenon A.E. or by the invoices adduced before the General Court or the other evidence.
Draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, common foreign and security policy, diplomatic representation, draft budget, general budget, operation of the Institutions








C_2010250EN.01000801.xml










17.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/8





Draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position
2010/C 250/05
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006 (2), and in particular Article 37 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2010 was definitively adopted on 17 December 2009 (3),










—


on 18 June 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for the financial year 2010,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council's position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 was adopted on 13 September 2010.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 13 September 2010.


For the Council


The President

S. VANACKERE




(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 43 and in OJ L 99, 14.4.2007, p. 18.

(2)  OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.
Case T-429/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, action for annulment, competition law, materials technology, steel, wire








C_2010301EN.01006201.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/62





Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
(Case T-429/10)
()
2010/C 301/99
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandí Blanco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Principally, annul, under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP 38344 — Prestressing steel;










—


in the alternative, annul or reduce, under Article 261 TFEU, the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-426/10 (Moreda-Rivière Trefilerías v Commission).
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those advanced in that case.
In particular, the applicant submits that the European Commission failed to meet the standard of proof required by Community case-law when it held GSW liable for the conduct of its subsidiaries. The European Commission did not prove that GSW was able to exercise a decisive influence over the conduct of the companies in which it held shares.
Case C-454/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 17 September 2010 — Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs fraud, customs regulations, customs territory (EU), interpretation of the law








C_2010317EN.01002202.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 17 September 2010 — Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen
(Case C-454/10)
()
2010/C 317/40
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Oliver Jestel

Respondent: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Questions referred







1.


Does a person become a debtor liable to pay customs duties because of ‘participation’ in the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union according to the second indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) where that person, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, arranges the conclusion of the contracts to purchase the goods concerned and therefore envisages that the seller will possibly deliver the goods or part of the goods in such a way as to evade import duties?










2.


If appropriate, is it sufficient that he considers this to be conceivable, or does he only become a debtor if he fully expects that this will happen?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Case T-420/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Armani v OHIM — Annunziata del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, clothing industry, footwear industry, optical industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01006101.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/61





Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Armani v OHIM — Annunziata del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)
(Case T-420/10)
()
2010/C 301/97
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Annunziata del Prete (Naples, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision R 1360/2009-2 of 8 July 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal for misapplication and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in failing to recognise that there is a risk of confusion between the marks at issue;










—


uphold the applicant’s arguments as put forward in the opposition proceedings and in accordance with the decision of the Opposition Division;










—


reject in its entirety, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Community trade mark application No 6 314 462 in the name of Annunziata del Prete, in respect of the goods and services specified therein;










—


order OHIM to comply with the decision and to refuse registration of the mark ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’;










—


order OHIM, alone and/or together with Annunziata del Prete, to reimburse Giorgio Armani SpA all costs incurred throughout the procedure;










—


decide, as a consequence of the annulment, that payment should be made to Giorgio Armani SpA of all the costs incurred in the course of the procedure, including the costs incurred in the appeal, in accordance with Article 91[(b)] of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Annunziata del Prete

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘AJ Amici Junior’ (registration application No 6 314 462), for goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark containing the word element ‘AJ Armani Jeans’ (No 912 114), for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 35, and the Italian word mark containing the word element ‘ARMANI JUNIOR’ (No 998 554), for goods in Classes 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 with regard to the existence of a risk of confusion between the marks at issue and between the goods covered by those marks
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, financial institution








C_2010250EN.01000501.xml










17.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/5





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 250/02






Date of adoption of the decision


30.7.2010




Reference number of State Aid


C 11/09




Member State


Netherlands




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Prolongation of the temporary approval of the additional aid to ABN Amro and Fortis Bank Nederland




Legal basis


Agreements for the MCN




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy




Form of aid


Other forms of equity intervention




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 7 820 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


Until the Commission has adopted a final decision




Economic sectors


Financial intermediation




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance




PO Box 20201




2500 EE The Hague




NEDERLAND








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


30.6.2010




Reference number of State Aid


N 261/10




Member State


Austria




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


BAWAG P.S.K.




Legal basis


§ 2 Abs. 1 Ziffer 2 und Ziffer 3 Finanzmarktstabilitäts- und Interbankstärkungsgesetz für Kreditinstitute und Versicherungsunternehmen in Österreich




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy




Form of aid


Capital injection




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 550 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


—




Economic sectors


Financial intermediation




Name and address of the granting authority







Bundesministerium für Finanzen




Wien




ÖSTERREICH








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
Notice on community guides to good practice
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cereals, food hygiene, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, information, user guide








C_2010250EN.01001401.xml










17.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/14





Notice on community guides to good practice
2010/C 250/11
In accordance with the outcome of the assessment carried out, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health agreed on the publication of the titles and references of the following Community guides to good practice, pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 January 2005 laying down requirements for feed hygiene and/or to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs:
Title: Community Guide to good hygiene practices specific to wholesale market management in the European Union
Author: World Union of Wholesale Markets, European Regional Section
Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/good_practice_en.htm
Title: European Good Hygiene Practices Guide for the collection, storage, transport and trading of cereals, oilseeds and proteins crops
Author: Coceral and Cogeca
Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/feedhygiene/guide_goodpractice_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/good_practice_en.htm
Title: F.E.D.I.A.F. Guide to good practice for the manufacture of safe pet foods, version of March 2010
Author: European Pet Food Industry F.E.D.I.A.F.
Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/feedhygiene/guide_goodpractice_en.htm
Title: European Guide to good practice for industrial manufacture of safe feed materials
Author: European Feed Ingredients Platform
Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/feedhygiene/guide_goodpractice_en.htm
Draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position
Date: 2010-09-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, draft budget, economic stabilisation, financial aid, general budget, loan








C_2010250EN.01001101.xml










17.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/11





Draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position
2010/C 250/08
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1525/2007 of 17 December 2007 (2), and in particular Article 37 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2010 was definitively adopted on 17 December 2009 (3),










—


on 13 July 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 7 to the general budget for the financial year 2010,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 was adopted on 13 September 2010.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, on 13 September 2010.


For the Council


The President

S. VANACKERE




(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 43 and in OJ L 99, 14.4.2007, p. 18.

(2)  OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 9.

(3)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.