do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-492/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2010 — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: budget, firm governed by commercial law, indirect tax, interpretation of the law








C_2011013EN.01001802.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2010 — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
(Case C-492/10)
()
2011/C 13/31
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG

Respondent: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Question referred

Does the absorption of a company’s losses by its sole member, a public body whose representative was instructed by the competent body to grant an annual member’s contribution to cover losses up to the amount provisionally earmarked in the budget estimate or business plan adopted by the company prior to the beginning of the financial year, increase the assets of that company within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) (which is identical to Article 3(h) of Directive 2008/7/EC)?


(1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010277EN.01000201.xml










14.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 October 2010
2010/C 277/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3958




JPY


Japanese yen


114,23




DKK


Danish krone


7,4565




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88120




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2662




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3352




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1350




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,470




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


273,45




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7095




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9545




RON


Romanian leu


4,2773




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9723




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4128




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3999




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,8317




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8407




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,8181




KRW


South Korean won


1 564,83




ZAR


South African rand


9,5766




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3018




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3308




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 461,72




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3172




PHP


Philippine peso


60,733




RUB


Russian rouble


42,0055




THB


Thai baht


41,790




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3240




MXN


Mexican peso


17,2900




INR


Indian rupee


62,0800






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5990 — Investor/Mölnlycke) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, health service, investment, merger control








C_2010277EN.01001901.xml










14.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5990 — Investor/Mölnlycke)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 277/07






1.


On 7 October 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Investor AB (‘Investor’, Sweden), controlled by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Mölnlycke AB (‘Mölnlycke’, Sweden, currently jointly controlled by Investor and Morgan Stanley) by purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Investor: industrial holding company active in the following business areas: core investments (shareholdings in listed companies), operating investments (notably in Aleris, a private healthcare company and in Mölnlycke), private equity investments and financial investments,










—


Mölnlycke: manufacturer and supplier of single-use surgical and wound care products, primarily for the professional healthcare sector.














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.5990 — Investor/Mölnlycke, 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’).
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, building plot, control of State aid, disclosure of information, sale








C_2010277EN.01000301.xml










14.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/3





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
2010/C 277/03
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


30 March 2010




Case number


:


61700




Decision number


:


127/10/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Region


:


Rogaland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Alleged aid being granted by sale of land from the municipality of Hå to Risa AS




Type of measure


:


No aid




Economic sectors


:


Sale of land




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Municipality of Hå




Rådshusgata 8




4368 Varhaug




NORWAY








Other information


:


—




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 C-513/10 P: Appeal brought on 14 October 2010 by Dimitris Platis against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-311/10 Dimitris Platis v Council and Greece
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Greece








C_2011080EN.01001001.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/10





Appeal brought on 14 October 2010 by Dimitris Platis against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-311/10 Dimitris Platis v Council and Greece
(Case C-513/10 P)
2011/C 80/18
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Dimitris Platis (represented by P. Theodoropoulos, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Hellenic Republic
By order of 17 December 2010 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismisses the appeal in part as clearly unfounded and in part as clearly inadmissible.
Case C-498/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2010 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax collection








C_2011013EN.01001901.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 October 2010 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-498/10)
()
2011/C 13/33
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X NV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a restriction on the freedom to provide services exists if the recipient of a service, provided by a service provider established in another Member State, is obliged under the legislation of the Member State where the service recipient is established and where the service is provided, to withhold tax on the remuneration payable for that service, whereas that withholding obligation does not exist in relation to a service provider who is established in the same Member State as the service recipient?










2(a)


If the answer to the previous question has the effect that legislation which provides for the imposition of tax by a service recipient hinders the freedom to provide services, can such a hindrance then be justified by the need to ensure that taxes are levied and collected from foreign companies whose stay in the Netherlands is short and which are difficult to control, with the result that the execution of the taxing powers allocated to the Netherlands becomes problematic?










2(b)


In that case, is it relevant that the legislation was later amended for situations such as the one at issue here, in the sense that the tax was unilaterally waived because it proved incapable of being simply and efficiently applied?










3.


Does the rule go beyond what is necessary given the opportunities for mutual assistance in the recovery of taxes presented in particular by Directive 76/308/EEC? (1)











4.


In answering the foregoing questions, is it relevant that the tax which is payable on the remuneration in the Member State where the service recipient is established can be set off against tax which is payable on that remuneration in that other Member State?






(1)  Council Directive of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18).
Case C-67/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy — Commission decision declaring that scheme compatible with the common market — Actions for damages in respect of the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision — Transitional measures between that scheme and the previous scheme — Temporal scope of application of the Commission’s decision not to object to the previous scheme — Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment)
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, appeal, control of State aid








C_2010346EN.01001101.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl v European Commission
(Case C-67/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy - Commission decision declaring that scheme compatible with the common market - Actions for damages in respect of the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision - Transitional measures between that scheme and the previous scheme - Temporal scope of application of the Commission’s decision not to object to the previous scheme - Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment)
2010/C 346/17
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl (represented by: A. Calabrese, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 2 December 2008 in Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05 Nuova Agricast v Commission by which the Court of First Instance rejected the claims for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State aid No 715/1999 — Italy (SG 2000 D/105754)) and as a result of the Commission’s conduct during the procedure which preceded the adoption of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
Case C-243/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Fire fighters employed in the public sector — Operational service — Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) — Maximum weekly working time — Refusal to work longer than that time — Compulsory transfer to another service — Direct effect — Consequence for national courts)
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, arrangement of working time, damage, interpretation of the law, pay cut, working time








C_2010346EN.01001601.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/16





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle
(Case C-243/09) (1)

(Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Fire fighters employed in the public sector - Operational service - Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) - Maximum weekly working time - Refusal to work longer than that time - Compulsory transfer to another service - Direct effect - Consequence for national courts)
2010/C 346/26
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Halle

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Günter Fuß

Defendant: Stadt Halle

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Halle — Interpretation of Article 22(1)(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — National legislation providing, in breach of that directive, for working time of more than 48 hours during a seven-day period for officials working as on-call professional firefighters — Compulsory transfer of an official who refused to work such hours to a post at the same grade in the administration — Concept of ‘detriment’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer compulsorily to another service a worker employed as a fire fighter in an operational service on the ground that that worker has requested compliance, within the latter service, with the maximum average weekly working time laid down in that provision. The fact that such a worker suffers no specific detriment by reason of that transfer, other than that resulting from the infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, is irrelevant in that regard.


(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6001 — Aker/Lindsay Goldberg/EPAX Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, fishing industry, investment, merger control








C_2010277EN.01001801.xml










14.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6001 — Aker/Lindsay Goldberg/EPAX Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 277/06






1.


On 6 October 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 undertakings Aker BioMarine ASA (‘ABM’), Norway, via its wholly owned subsidiary Trygg Pharma AS, and Lindsay Goldberg LLC (‘LG’), United States, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking EPAX Holding ASA (‘EPAX’), Norway, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking ABM: harvesting of Antarctic krill and production of derived products such as krill meal and krill oil,










—


for undertaking LG: long term investments in companies with growth opportunities in a range of businesses around the world,










—


for undertaking EPAX: production of concentrated fish oil for use in various dietary supplements in the health food segment.














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.6001 — Aker/Lindsay Goldberg/EPAX Holding, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5862 — Mahle/Behr/Behr Industry)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, physical process, refrigeration industry








C_2010277EN.01000101.xml










14.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5862 — Mahle/Behr/Behr Industry)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 277/01
On 28 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 German 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 32010M5862. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-336/08: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin, Germany) — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2010-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health care, health service, interpretation of the law, medical institution, redemption, third country








C_2011063EN.01001301.xml










26.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/13





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin, Germany) — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin
(Case C-336/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 63/24
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Christel Reinke

Respondent: AOK Berlin

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC and Article 34(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 159) — Reimbursement of medical costs incurred in connection with emergency treatment of a national of a Member State in a private hospital of another Member State as a result of the refusal of the competent public hospital to provide that benefit on the ground of insufficient capacity — National legislation of the competent Member State excluding reimbursement of medical costs incurred for emergency treatment in a private hospital of another Member State but allowing reimbursement of those costs if charged by a private hospital situated in national territory

Operative part of the order

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) by decision of 27 June 2008.


(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.