do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, development aid, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2010285EN.01001301.xml










21.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/13





Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
2010/C 285/05
PART I








Aid No


GBER 20/09/R&D




EFTA State


Norway




Granting authority







Finnmark fylkeskommune




Henry Karlsens plass 1




9815 Vadsø




NORWAY




http://www.ffk.no






 




Title of the aid measure


Development aid 2009 for Hammerfest Næringshage AS




National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)


Decision from Finnmark County Council
Date 25 August 2009




 


Ad hoc aid


x







Hammerfest Næringshage AS




9600 Hammerfest




NORWAY








Date of granting


Ad hoc aid


25.8.2009




Economic sector(s) concerned


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid


x




Type of beneficiary


SME


x




Overall amount of the ad hoc aid awarded to the undertaking


NOK 0,2 (in millions)




Aid instrument (Article 5)


Grant


x




PART II









General objectives (list)


Objectives (list)


Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK


SME-bonuses in %




Aid for research, development and innovation (Articles 30-37)


Aid for research and development projects (Article 31)


Fundamental research (Article 31(2)(a))


… %


 




Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b))


… %


 




Experimental development (Article 31(2)(c))


2,16 %
Case F-104/10: Action brought on 21 October 2010 — De Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz v European Commission
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: action for annulment, health expenditure, hospitalisation, legal expenses








C_2011013EN.01004203.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/42





Action brought on 21 October 2010 — De Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz v European Commission
(Case F-104/10)
()
2011/C 13/85
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Mario Alberto de Pretis Cagnodo and Serena Trampuz (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to reimburse 100 % of certain medical expenses in connection with the hospitalisation of the wife of a retired official.

Form of order sought







—


Suspend, or in any event prohibit provisionally, implementation of the compulsory recovery procedure for the sums at issue, in the light of the prima facie case disclosed by the present application, the serious material loss which the applicants would otherwise suffer and the lack of clarity in relation to the computation of the contested sums and, consequently, prohibit temporarily the automatic deduction of such sums from the pension of Mr de Pretis Cagnodo;










—


declare that that the applicants are not required to reimburse any payments made by the claims settlement office, Ispra and, consequently, order the Commission to withdraw the claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 41 833 — or any other such sum claimed — and to desist from any automatic deduction of that amount from the pension of Mr de Pretis Cagnodo, it having been confirmed and declared that Mrs Trampuz can in no way be criticised or censured regarding the calculation and payment of the costs of the hospital stay as claimed by the hospital where she was admitted, the illness which caused her to be hospitalised and the surgery which she underwent have been categorised as ‘serious’, and the length of time for which she was admitted regarded as inevitable and clinically correct;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case T-439/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus — Documents emanating from a third party — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — Time-limit for action — Inadmissibility — Objection of illegality — Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Duty to give reasons)
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), financial aid, infringement of EU law, professional qualifications, vocational training








C_2010328EN.01002901.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/29





Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA
(Case T-439/08) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus - Documents emanating from a third party - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - Time-limit for action - Inadmissibility - Objection of illegality - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Duty to give reasons)
2010/C 328/48
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Josephides, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and G. Rozet, acting as Agents); and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of the decision of the EACEA of 1 August 2008, concerning a request for access to certain documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus and, secondly, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008 relating to an individual decision to award a subsidy within the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme, Jean Monnet sub-programme

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 237, 20.12.2008.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: competition (EU), lawyer








C_2010285EN.01001501.xml










21.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/15





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
2010/C 285/07
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


EPSO/AD/200/10 — Lawyers with English, Scottish or Northern Irish legal training










 


EPSO/AD/201/10 — Lawyers with Spanish legal training










 


EPSO/AD/202/10 — Lawyers with French legal training










 


EPSO/AD/203/10 — Lawyers with Dutch legal training




Administrators (AD 5) specialising in legal research
The competition notice is published in English, Spanish, French and Dutch only, in Official Journal C 285 A of 21 October 2010.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent’ COM(2010) 388 final — 2008/0173 (COD)
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: codification of EU law, company law, legal status, protection of shareholders, public limited company, right of establishment, share capital








C_2011051EN.01003501.xml










17.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/35





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent’
(Codification)
COM(2010) 388 final — 2008/0173 (COD)
2011/C 51/06
On 9 September 2010 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 50(1) and (2)(g) and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the
‘Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent’
COM(2010) 388 final — 2008/0173 (COD).
Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 466th plenary session of 21 October 2010, by 123 votes with two abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 21 October 2010.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON
Case C-242/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest (Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Group of companies in which staff employed by an employer company and assigned on a permanent basis to an operating company — Transfer of an operating company)
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, business management, interpretation of the law, labour force, labour law, transfer of businesses








C_2010346EN.01001502.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/15





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest
(Case C-242/09) (1)

(Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Group of companies in which staff employed by an ‘employer’ company and assigned on a permanent basis to an ‘operating’ company - Transfer of an operating company)
2010/C 346/25
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Albron Catering BV

Defendant: FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Company with all the personnel of a group of companies which makes it available to operating companies of the group according to their needs — Transfer of the activity of an operating company outside the group — Classification

Operative part of the judgment

In the event of a transfer within the meaning of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, of an undertaking belonging to a group to an undertaking outside that group, it is also possible to regard as a ‘transferor’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of that directive, the group company to which the employees were assigned on a permanent basis without however being linked to the latter by a contract of employment, even though there exists within that group an undertaking with which the employees concerned were linked by such a contract of employment.


(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009, p. 21.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 947/2010 of 21 October 2010 granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, powdered milk, skimmed milk








L_2010278EN.01001101.xml










22.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 278/11








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 947/2010
of 21 October 2010
         
granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


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 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 19 October 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 19 October 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 October 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 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 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Case C-205/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Meaning of victim — Legal persons — Mediation in criminal proceedings — Detailed rules of application)
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Hungary, arbitration, criminal procedure, interpretation of the law, natural person








C_2010346EN.01001402.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/14





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi
(Case C-205/09) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Meaning of ‘victim’ - Legal persons - Mediation in criminal proceedings - Detailed rules of application)
2010/C 346/23
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság

Parties in the main proceedings

Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(a) and Article 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Criminal proceedings in which the victim is a legal person and in which mediation in criminal cases is excluded by national law — Concept of ‘victim’ in the framework decision — Inclusion, as regards the provisions on mediation in criminal cases, of persons other than natural persons? — Conditions for the application of mediation in criminal proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby rules:






1.


Articles 1(a) and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘victim’ does not extend to legal persons for the purposes of the promotion of mediation in criminal proceedings in Article 10(1).










2.


Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make recourse to mediation possible for all offences the substantive components of which, as defined by national legislation, correspond essentially to those of offences for which mediation is expressly provided by that legislation.






(1)  OJ 2009 C 205, 29.08.2009.
Case C-505/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, excise duty, hydrocarbon, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation








C_2011013EN.01002001.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-505/10)
()
2011/C 13/35
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Partrederiet Sea Fighter

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred







1.


Is Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 (1) on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils to be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor, in circumstances such as those of the present case, are exempt from duty?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12
Case C-385/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Lithuania)) — Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction of input VAT — National legislation excluding the right of deduction in respect of goods sold on before identification of the taxable person for VAT purposes)
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Lithuania, VAT, basis of tax assessment, delivery, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax harmonisation, tax on consumption








C_2010346EN.01001901.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/19





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Lithuania)) — Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-385/09) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction of input VAT - National legislation excluding the right of deduction in respect of goods sold on before identification of the taxable person for VAT purposes)
2010/C 346/30
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nidera Handelscompagnie BV

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės — Interpretation of Articles 167, 168(1)(a) and 178(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation reserving the right to deduct VAT to taxable persons registered for VAT in that Member State — Right to deduct VAT excluded for goods and services acquired by the taxable person before his registration for VAT in the Member State concerned if those goods and services have already been used for the purposes of the taxable person’s transactions

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person for VAT purposes who meets the substantive conditions for the right of deduction, in accordance with the provisions of that directive, and who identifies himself as a taxable person for VAT purposes within a reasonable period following the completion of transactions giving rise to that right of deduction, from being denied the possibility of exercising that right by national legislation which prohibits the deduction of VAT paid on the purchase of goods if the taxpayer was not identified as a taxable person for VAT purposes before using those goods in his taxable activity.


(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.