do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, telecommunications








C_2011041EN.01000101.xml










10.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 41/1





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
2011/C 41/01
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are amended as follows:

On page 354:








8528 71 11


to


8528 71 19




Video tuners





The existing text is replaced by the following:

‘These subheadings include apparatus incorporating a video tuner which converts high-frequency television signals into signals usable by video recording or reproducing apparatus or monitors.
These apparatus incorporate selector circuits, which permit tuning to a special channel or carrier frequency, and demodulation circuits. The apparatus may also be equipped with a decoding device (colour) or separator circuitry for synchronisation. They are generally designed to operate with an individual aerial or a shared aerial (high-frequency cable distribution).
The output signal can be used as an input signal for monitors or for recording or reproducing apparatus. It consists of the original camera signal (i.e., not modulated for transmission purposes).
Analogue video tuners within the meaning of these subheadings may be in the form of modules comprising, at least, the radio frequency circuits (RF block), intermediate frequency circuits (IF block) and demodulation circuits (DEM block) where the output is a separate audio and composite video baseband signal (CVBS).
Digital video tuners within the meaning of these subheadings may be in the form of modules comprising, at least, the RF block, IF block, DEM block and an MPEG decoder for digital television where the output is a separate audio and digital video signal.
Modules incorporating both an analogue and a digital video tuner component fall under these subheadings when one of the components is to be classified as a complete or finished video tuner by application of General Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Combined Nomenclature.
A module not fulfilling the above conditions is to be classified as a part under heading 8529.’



(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.
Case C-61/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte D’Appello Di Trento (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Hassen El Dridi alias Karim Soufi
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, return migration








C_2011113EN.01000802.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte D’Appello Di Trento (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Hassen El Dridi alias Karim Soufi
(Case C-61/11)
2011/C 113/16
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte D’Appello Di Trento

Party to the main proceedings

Hassen El Dridi, alias Karim Soufi

Questions referred

In the light of the principle of sincere cooperation, the purpose of which is to ensure the attainment of the objectives of the directive, and the principle that the penalty must be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude:






1.


the possibility that criminal sanctions may be imposed in respect of a breach of an intermediate stage in the administrative return procedure, before that procedure is completed, by having recourse to the most severe administrative measure of constraint which remains available?










2.


the possibility of a sentence of up to four years’ imprisonment being imposed in respect of a simple failure to cooperate in the deportation procedure on the part of the person concerned, in particular where the first removal order issued by the administrative authorities has not been complied with?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Corrigendum to guidance on the preparation of an application for authorisation ( OJ C 28, 28.1.2011 )
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: exchange of information, liability, opt-out clause, user guide








C_2011041EN.01007501.xml










10.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 41/75





Corrigendum to guidance on the preparation of an application for authorisation
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 28 of 28 January 2011
)
2011/C 41/09
On the cover, in the title:
for:

read:

on page 1, in the title:
for:

read:



(1)  Disclaimer: This document cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a position of the Commission.’,

(2)  The final version will be published by the European Chemicals Agency on its website.’.
Case C-62/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Florence Feyerbacher v Land Hessen, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Central Bank, Germany, social-security benefit








C_2011145EN.01000702.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Florence Feyerbacher v Land Hessen, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen
(Case C-62/11)
2011/C 145/09
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Florence Feyerbacher

Defendant: Land Hessen, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen (Regional Administration, Gießen)

Questions referred







1.


Is the Agreement of 18 September 1998 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank (ECB) on the Headquarters of the ECB (‘Headquarters Agreement’) part of European Union law which takes precedence over national law or does it constitute an international treaty?










2.


Must Article 15 of the Headquarters Agreement in conjunction with Article 36 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the ECB be interpreted restrictively with the result that the applicability of German social security law conferring the benefit in question is excluded only where pursuant to the ‘Conditions of Employment’ the ECB confers a comparable social benefit on its staff?




If Question 2 is answered in the negative:






(a)


Must the abovementioned provisions be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of a national provision which grants family benefits only on the basis of the territorial principle?










(b)


Is the reasoning of the Court of Justice in Case C-352/06 Bosmann [2008] ECR I-3827, paragraphs 31 to 33, relevant to the application of the abovementioned provisions? Does Article 15 of the Headquarters Agreement in conjunction with Article 36 of the Statute of the ESCB and ECB not deprive the Federal Republic of Germany of the power to grant family benefits to employees of the ECB resident in Germany?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6147 — Rosneft Oil Company/BP/Ruhr Oel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals








C_2011041EN.01007201.xml










10.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 41/72





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6147 — Rosneft Oil Company/BP/Ruhr Oel)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 41/07






1.


On 3 February 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Rosneft Oil Company (‘Rosneft’, Russia), which belongs to the Russian State, and BP p.l.c. (‘BP’, England and Wales) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over industrial solvents and utilities services businesses of Ruhr Oel GmbH (‘ROG's solvents and utilities services businesses’, Germany) which is currently jointly controlled by BP and Petroleos de Venezuela Europa BV (‘PDVE’, the Netherlands) belonging to Petroleos de Venezuela SA (‘PDVA’, Venezuela).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Rosneft: exploration and production of oil and gas, production of petroleum products and petrochemicals, and the marketing of outputs in Russia and abroad,










—


for BP: exploration, development and production of oil and gas; refining, manufacturing and marketing of oil products and petrochemicals and the development of renewable energies,










—


for ROG's solvents and utilities services businesses: production and distribution of industrial solvents and provision of utilities and industrial services.














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.6147 — Rosneft Oil Company/BP/Ruhr Oel, 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.6060 — Citigroup/Public Sector Pension Investment Board/DP World/DP World Australia JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, merger control, port administration








C_2011041EN.01007401.xml










10.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 41/74





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6060 — Citigroup/Public Sector Pension Investment Board/DP World/DP World Australia JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 41/08






1.


On 28 January 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC (United States) belonging to the Citigroup Inc (‘Citigroup’ United States), the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSP’, Canada) and DP World Limited (‘DP World’, United Arab Emirates) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of DP World Australia Limited (‘DPWA’, Australia) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Citigroup: global financial services group,










—


PSP: Canadian crown corporation established to invest the net contributions from public sector pension plans,










—


DP World: international maritime operator providing cargo handling and logistics services,










—


DPWA: active in the development and operation of ports, management of container terminals and container parks and stevedoring in Australia.














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.6060 — Citigroup/Public Sector Pension Investment Board/DP World/DP World Australia 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-30/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt — Sweden) — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Article 10(c) — National provision — Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims — Exclusion of persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it)
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, liquidation








C_2011103EN.01000901.xml










2.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/9





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt — Sweden) — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten
(Case C-30/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 10(c) - National provision - Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims - Exclusion of persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it)
2011/C 103/13
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Linköpings tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lotta Andersson

Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Linköpings tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 10(c) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — National legislation excluding from the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which excludes an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims on the ground that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had a considerable influence on its activities.


(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011041EN.01000301.xml










10.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 41/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 February 2011
2011/C 41/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3647




JPY


Japanese yen


112,65




DKK


Danish krone


7,4560




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85000




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7885




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3152




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8685




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,212




HUF


Hungarian forint


271,61




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7035




PLN


Polish zloty


3,8943




RON


Romanian leu


4,2565




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1650




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3510




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3573




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6275




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7687




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7399




KRW


South Korean won


1 515,22




ZAR


South African rand


9,8339




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9930




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4158




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 180,12




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1473




PHP


Philippine peso


59,383




RUB


Russian rouble


40,0022




THB


Thai baht


41,937




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2768




MXN


Mexican peso


16,4647




INR


Indian rupee


62,0500






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-25/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge (Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Inheritance tax — Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies — Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked — Restriction — Justification)
Date: 2011-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2011103EN.01000802.xml










2.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/8





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge
(Case C-25/10) (1)

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Inheritance tax - Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies - Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked - Restriction - Justification)
2011/C 103/12
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 18, 45, 49 and 54 TFEU — Succession duties — Refusal to apply the reduced rate applicable to legacies to non-profit-making associations and ‘public-interest foundations’ in cases where those associations and foundations have their seat in a Member State other than that in which the deceased person resided or worked — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Restriction of the freedom of establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State which reserves application of succession duties at the reduced rate to non-profit-making bodies which have their centre of operations in that Member State or in the Member State in which, at the time of death, the deceased actually resided or had his place of work, or in which he had previously actually resided or had his place of work.


(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.