do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5880 — Shell/Topaz/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aviation fuel, chemical product, economic concentration, electrical energy, exchange of information, merger control, natural gas, oil industry, renewable energy








C_2010269EN.01000801.xml










5.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5880 — Shell/Topaz/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 269/05






1.


On 28 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 the undertaking Topaz Energy Group Limited (‘Topaz’, Ireland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over Shell Aviation Ireland Limited (‘SAIL’, Ireland), currently wholly-owned by Asiatic Petroleum Company Dublin Limited (‘APCD’, Ireland) belonging to Royal Dutch Shell plc (‘Shell’, England and Wales), by way of acquisition of 50 % of the shares in SAIL.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Shell is active in the worldwide exploration, production, and sale of oil and natural gas, the production and sale of oil products and chemicals, power generation, and the production of energy from renewable sources,










—


SAIL is active in the marketing of aviation fuels in the Republic of Ireland,










—


Topaz is active in retail and non-retail sales of petroleum products in Ireland and is also the owner of import and logistics assets in Ireland connected with the marketing and distributions of fuels and petroleum products.














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.5880 — Shell/Topaz/JV, 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’).
Case T-441/07: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for failure to act, air transport, competition law, complaint to the Commission








C_2010328EN.01005702.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/57





Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-441/07) (1)

()
2010/C 328/89
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
Case C-400/10 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Children whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — Interpretation of rights of custody — General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, parental responsibility








C_2010328EN.01001001.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E.
(Case C-400/10 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Children whose parents are not married - Father’s rights of custody - Interpretation of ‘rights of custody’ - General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
2010/C 328/15
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J. McB.

Defendant: L. E.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Child whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — National legislation requiring the father to obtain an order from the court with jurisdiction in order to have rights of custody in respect of the child which render wrongful the child’s removal or retention outside the child’s country of habitual residence.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing by its law that the acquisition of rights of custody by a child’s father, where he is not married to the child’s mother, is dependent on the father’s obtaining a judgment from a national court with jurisdiction awarding such rights to him, on the basis of which the removal of the child by its mother or the retention of that child may be considered wrongful, within the meaning of Article 2(11) of that regulation


(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
Case F-99/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, indemnification, pay








C_2011013EN.01004202.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/42





Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission
(Case F-99/10)
()
2011/C 13/84
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Michael Ashbrook (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decisions, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, and claim for compensation.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decisions, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for January 2010 and the months thereafter, and in their slips concerning arrears of salary for 2009, in so far as those decisions apply a rate of adjustment of 1,85 % instead of a rate of 3,7 %;










—


Order the Commission to pay the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of Regulation No 1296/09 until the date of delivery of judgment in this case and the amount which should have been paid to them if the adjustment had been calculated correctly, together with interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable in the periods concerned, plus 3,5 percentage points, for the period starting with the date on which sums principally claimed were due;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-479/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, anhydride, dangerous substance, environmental cooperation, environmental policy, health policy, lead, oxide, pollution control, pollution control measures








C_2010328EN.01002401.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/24





Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-479/10)
()
2010/C 328/40
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


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

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by exceeding the limit values of PM10 in ambient air in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;










—


Order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 provides that Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Section I of Annex III as from the dates specified therein. The relevant date in this case is 1 January 2005.
It is apparent from the reports sent by Sweden to the Commission concerning 2005 to 2007 that the limit values for PM10 have been exceeded in zones SW 2 and SW 4 during that entire period, and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.
Accordingly, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in respect of those zones and those years.


(1)  OJ L 163, p. 41.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 876/2010 of 5 October 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit








L_2010263EN.01000701.xml










6.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 263/7








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 876/2010
of 5 October 2010
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


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),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 October 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 October 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 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MK 


46,6 




XS 


50,2 




ZZ 


48,4 




0707 00 05 


MK 


36,4 




TR 


132,4 




ZZ 


84,4 




0709 90 70 


TR 


119,8 




ZZ 


119,8 




0805 50 10 


AR 


83,1 




BR 


105,9 




CL 


145,9 




IL 


116,3 




MA 


148,6 




TR 


105,6 




UY 


132,9 




ZA 


103,0 




ZZ 


117,7 




0806 10 10 


BR 


204,7 




TR 


113,4 




ZA 


62,8 




ZZ 


127,0 




0808 10 80 


AR 


80,5 




AU 


203,7 




BR 


52,7 




CL 


91,8 




CN 


55,7 




NZ 


105,1 




US 


84,3 




ZA 


83,2 




ZZ 


94,6 




0808 20 50 


CN 


72,5 




ZA 


89,0 




ZZ 


80,8 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6005 — Cinven/Spice) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, management, merger control, provision of services, public service








C_2010269EN.01000601.xml










5.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6005 — Cinven/Spice)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 269/03






1.


On 27 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 the undertaking Cinven Limited (‘Cinven’, England) a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinven Group Limited (‘Cinven Group’, England) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Spice plc (‘Spice’, England) pursuant to which Cinven will hold all the shares in Spice.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Cinven: provision of investment management and advisory services to a number of investment funds,










—


for Spice: provider of outsourced infrastructure support services principally to the utility sector in the UK. Spice is listed on the London Stock Exchange.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6005 — Cinven/Spice, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-512/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Social security — Medical treatment proposed in another Member State and requiring the use of major medical equipment — Requirement of prior authorisation — Planned treatment provided in another Member State — Difference in the levels of cover in force in the Member State of affiliation and in the Member State of stay, respectively — Insured person’s right to assistance by the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, anti-discriminatory measure, free movement of persons, hospital expenses, nursing care, provision of services








C_2010328EN.01000301.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-512/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Medical treatment proposed in another Member State and requiring the use of major medical equipment - Requirement of prior authorisation - Planned treatment provided in another Member State - Difference in the levels of cover in force in the Member State of affiliation and in the Member State of stay, respectively - Insured person’s right to assistance by the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)
2010/C 328/04
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, G. Rozet and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: A. Czubinski and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by I. Rao, and subsequently by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirement of prior authorisation, from the State of insurance, in order to obtain repayment for certain non-hospital treatment received in another Member State — Failure to pay the difference between the amount received by the insured, who receives hospital treatment in a Member State other than the Member State of insurance, and the amount to which he would have been entitled had he received the same treatment in the Member State of insurance — Unjustified obstacles to the freedom to provide services

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case C-480/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, basis of tax assessment, distributive trades, provision of services, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, tax on consumption, tax relief








C_2010328EN.01002402.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/24





Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-480/10)
()
2010/C 328/41
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


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

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by in practice limiting the regime for value added tax (VAT) groups to providers of financial services and insurance services, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and










—


order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Swedish rules on VAT groups are contrary to Article 11 of the VAT Directive, since the application of the rules is limited to undertakings which are active within the financial sector. In the view of the Commission, national regimes for VAT groups must apply to all undertakings which are established in the Member State applying the arrangements, irrespective of the type of activity carried out by the undertaking.
The common system of VAT is a uniform system. Introduction of a special regime into that system must consequently, in principle, be done in such a way that the regime is generally applicable.
There is nothing in the wording of Article 11 of the VAT Directive to indicate that a Member State can limit the application of a regime for VAT groups to certain undertakings which are active within a certain sector.
The aim of Article 11 of the VAT Directive also tends to suggest that the provision is to be understood as applying to all undertakings in all sectors.
Furthermore, the Swedish rules on VAT groups are incompatible with the European Union law principle of equal treatment.
Case T-92/09: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Strategi Group v OHIM — RBI (STRATEGI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark STRATEGI — Earlier national word mark Stratégies — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
Date: 2010-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, mass media, press, trade-mark law








C_2010317EN.01002902.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/29





Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Strategi Group v OHIM — RBI (STRATEGI)
(Case T-92/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark STRATEGI - Earlier national word mark Stratégies - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
2010/C 317/53
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Strategi Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Saunders, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Reed Business Information (RBI) (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: A. Messas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2008 (Case R 1581/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Reed Business Information (RBI) and Strategi Group Ltd.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Strategi Group Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.