do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-11/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2011 — Société Air France S.A. v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts and Luz-Tereza Folkerts
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, aircraft fleet, approval of tariffs, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, traveller








C_2011095EN.01000501.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2011 — Société Air France S.A. v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts and Luz-Tereza Folkerts
(Case C-11/11)
2011/C 95/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société Air France S.A.

Defendant: Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts

Questions referred







1.


Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) in the case where departure was delayed for a period which is below the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative:
For the purpose of determining whether there was a delay, within the terms of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, in the case of a flight consisting of several stages, should reference be made to the individual stages or to the distance to the final destination?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-16/11: Action brought on 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Estonia, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, publication of a law








C_2011063EN.01002401.xml










26.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/24





Action brought on 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-16/11)
2011/C 63/43
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


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

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary legal provisions to transpose Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community, (1) or by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;










—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 15 May 2009.


(1)  OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6062 — Coop/TransGourmet)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011006EN.01000301.xml










11.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6062 — Coop/TransGourmet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 6/02
On 3 January 2011, 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 32011M6062. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6099 — AP/Takko) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, consultancy, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, retail trade








C_2011006EN.01001901.xml










11.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6099 — AP/Takko)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 6/08






1.


On 22 December 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 Apax Partners LLP (‘AP’, UK), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Takko Holding Gmbh (‘Takko’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for AP: adviser to private funds,










—


for Takko: retail sale of fashion apparel and related accessories.














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.6099 — AP/Takko, 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6077 — TPG/Ashland Distribution) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, exchange of information, investment, merger control








C_2011006EN.01001801.xml










11.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6077 — TPG/Ashland Distribution)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 6/07






1.


On 22 December 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which TPG Holdings II, L.P. (‘TPG’, USA), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of part of Ashland Inc. (‘Ashland Distribution’, USA) by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


TPG: a holding vehicle for various investment firms. TPG is a member of the TPG Group, a leading global private investment firm that manages a family of funds, which invest in a variety of companies through acquisitions and corporate restructurings,










—


Ashland Distribution: the distribution business of Ashland Inc which is active in the markets related to chemicals, plastics, and composite raw materials, as well as environmental services, including hazardous and nonhazardous waste collection, recovery, recycling and disposal in the United States.














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.6077 — TPG/Ashland Distribution, 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 F-87/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2011 — Dekker v Europol
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, Europol, Netherlands, action by staff, disability insurance, indemnification, tax on income, tax system








C_2011252EN.01005703.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/57





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2011 — Dekker v Europol
(Case F-87/09) (1)

2011/C 252/128
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 80.
Case C-14/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), market prices, parent company, restrictive trade practice, subsidiary, tobacco industry








C_2011080EN.01001501.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/15





Appeal brought on 11 January 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-14/11 P)
2011/C 80/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:






—


set aside point 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment;










—


dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;










—


require TCLT to bear the costs of these proceedings and to require the three Applicants to bear the entirety of the cots of the proceedings in first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:






1.


The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment and disregarded a well established line of case law according to which the liability of each company must be assessed on its own merits.










2.


The General Court erred in law in considering that the Commission's treatment of certain parent companies determined the legal standard for holding other parent companies liable, even if such standard went beyond what the case law requires.










3.


By preventing the Commission from raising arguments in response to claims of discrimination, the General Court breached the Commission's rights to an adversarial procedure and misinterpreted the duty to state reasons.










4.


The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment since Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd. was in an objectively different situation from Intabex and Universal.
Case T-14/11: Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), animal nutrition, cartel








C_2011080EN.01002201.xml










12.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/22





Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
(Case T-14/11)
2011/C 80/42
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France) and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2010 implicitly refusing access to Commission documents relating to the procedure initiated by the Commission in Case COMP/38.866 concerning a cartel in the European market for animal feed phosphates.
In support of the action the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Commission did not reply to the confirmatory application for access to its decision or decisions fixing the probable ranges of fines as regards the addressees of Decision C(2010) 5004 Final, which was adopted as a result of settlement proceedings.










2.


The second plea in law alleges errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in so far as the Commission relied, during the examination procedure in respect of the application for access to the documents, on the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to justify the refusal of access. The applicants submit that the documents requested:






—


are not opinions, but decisions in respect of which it is not established that communication of them may seriously undermine the decision-making process;










—


do not contain any sensitive commercial data;










—


have no connection with inspections, investigations and audits.










(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case F-3/11: Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), health expenditure, health insurance, redemption








C_2011113EN.01002201.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/22





Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-3/11)
2011/C 113/45
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 15 March 2010 and a claim for compensation for the damage suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 15 March 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority of the Commission;










—


in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission’s rejection of the complaint of 5 August 2010;










—


in so far as is necessary, annul the note of 24 August 2010, written in Italian, which was not received by the applicant before 1 October 2010;










—


order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered by the applicant as a result of each of the decisions in respect of which annulment is sought, in particular as a result of the cumulative effect of those decisions, by paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-303/10: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Administración General del Estado v Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (RENFE)
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, excise duty, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation








C_2011120EN.01001001.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/10





Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Administración General del Estado v Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (RENFE)
(Case C-303/10) (1)

2011/C 120/23
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.09.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011006EN.01000401.xml










11.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2011
2011/C 6/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2903




JPY


Japanese yen


107,17




DKK


Danish krone


7,4494




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83180




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9205




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2459




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7085




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,648




HUF


Hungarian forint


280,42




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7006




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9047




RON


Romanian leu


4,2638




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0524




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3037




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2850




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0340




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7011




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6802




KRW


South Korean won


1 459,30




ZAR


South African rand


8,8717




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5646




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4023




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 738,82




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9748




PHP


Philippine peso


57,308




RUB


Russian rouble


39,6750




THB


Thai baht


39,650




BRL


Brazilian real


2,1818




MXN


Mexican peso


15,8223




INR


Indian rupee


58,7540






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-286/10: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cross-border transport, labour law, rail transport








C_2011120EN.01000905.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/9





Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-286/10) (1)

2011/C 120/21
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6054 — First Reserve Corporation/Blackstone/PBF Energy)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, exchange of information, investment, merger control, oil industry, renewable energy








C_2011006EN.01000302.xml










11.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6054 — First Reserve Corporation/Blackstone/PBF Energy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 6/03
On 21 December 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 English 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 32010M6054. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.