do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, plastics








C_2011122EN.01001001.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/10





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2011/C 122/08
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date in the table.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry




Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)


India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Republic of Korea
Taiwan
Thailand


Anti-dumping duty
Undertaking


Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 (OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 1)


28.2.2012






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 395/2011 of 20 April 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2011105EN.01000101.xml










21.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 105/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 395/2011
of 20 April 2011
         
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 21 April 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 April 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

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 


JO 


78,3 




MA 


58,3 




TN 


120,5 




TR 


95,6 




ZZ 


88,2 




0707 00 05 


AL 


52,2 




TR 


141,4 




ZZ 


96,8 




0709 90 70 


MA 


82,8 




TR 


88,0 




ZA 


13,0 




ZZ 


61,3 




0805 10 20 


BR 


65,7 




EG 


53,3 




IL 


61,7 




MA 


47,7 




TN 


49,5 




TR 


73,4 




ZZ 


58,6 




0805 50 10 


TR 


47,4 




ZZ 


47,4 




0808 10 80 


AR 


77,8 




BR 


73,5 




CA 


98,2 




CL 


81,8 




CN 


108,3 




MK 


47,7 




NZ 


115,8 




US 


111,9 




UY 


65,4 




ZA 


84,3 




ZZ 


86,5 




0808 20 50 


AR 


84,7 




CL 


102,1 




CN 


60,8 




ZA 


88,2 




ZZ 


84,0 






(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’.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2011 of 20 April 2011 not fixing a minimum selling price in response to the twentieth individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, market intervention, minimum price, selling price, skimmed milk powder








L_2011105EN.01000501.xml










21.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 105/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 397/2011
of 20 April 2011
         
not fixing a minimum selling price in response to the twentieth individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010


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 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).












(2)


In the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.












(3)


In the light of the tenders received for the twentieth individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the twentieth individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 19 April 2011, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 April 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 April 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 126, 22.5.2010, p. 19.

(3)  
            OJ L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-222/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Zimbabwe, fundamental rights, international sanctions








C_2011186EN.01002902.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/29





Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission
(Case T-222/11)
2011/C 186/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Muller Conrad Rautenbach (Harare, Zimbabwe) (represented by: S. Smith QC, M. Lester, Barristers, and W. Osmond, Solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and










—


Order the defendants to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that neither Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 nor Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP has a valid legal basis since the institutions concerned acted beyond the ambit of their powers.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants do not have the power to impose these restrictive measures on the applicant; alternatively, his inclusion is based on a manifest error of assessment, as the defendants erred in concluding that the restrictive measures were justified as regards the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached their duty to give reasons, as the statement of reasons given does not comply with such obligation incumbent upon EU institutions.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, specifically on his property rights, freedom to conduct his business and the right to respect for his reputation and family life.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6199 — TowerBrook/York/Apollo/Monier) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011122EN.01001101.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6199 — TowerBrook/York/Apollo/Monier)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 122/09






1.


On 11 April 2011, 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 TowerBrook Capital Partners (UK) LLP (‘TowerBrook’, United Kingdom), York Capital Global Management Advisors, LLC (‘York’, USA) and Apollo Global Management, LLC (‘Apollo’, USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Monier (Germany) by way of a public bid announced on 4 April 2011.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for TowerBrook: private equity investment,










—


for York: management of investment funds,










—


for Apollo: portfolio investments,










—


for Monier: manufacturer and supplier of roofing tiles, components for roofs and chimney and ventilation systems.














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.6199 — TowerBrook/York/Apollo/Monier, 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-189/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, VAT, flat-rate tax, tax relief, travel agency








C_2011186EN.01001601.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/16





Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-189/11)
2011/C 186/27
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought







—


Declare that






—


by applying the special scheme for travel agents in cases where travel services have been sold to a person other than the traveller;










—


by excluding from that special scheme sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of trips organised by wholesale agents;










—


by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount that is not related to the actual VAT charged to the customer, and by authorising the latter, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the VAT payable; and










—


by authorising travel agencies, insofar as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the basis of assessment of the tax for each tax period;








the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax,






—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the application by the Kingdom of Spain of the special scheme for travel agents, insofar as it is not limited to services provided to travellers, as the directive prescribes, but is extended to operations carried out between travel agents, infringes the provisions of the legislation concerning VAT.
Furthermore, the exclusion from that special scheme of sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of trips organised by wholesale agents is not compatible with the directive either, as such activities, without any doubt in the opinion of the Commission, fall within the activities covered by the special scheme.
Likewise, the Commission considers that the Spanish rules authorising travel agents, without any basis in that directive, to charge in the invoice an overall VAT amount that is not related to the actual VAT charged to the customer, or that authorise the latter, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the VAT payable, or that allow travel agencies, insofar as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the basis of assessment of the tax for each tax period, infringe the VAT directive.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-223/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Siemens v Commission
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract, indemnification, national law








C_2011194EN.01001701.xml










2.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/17





Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Siemens v Commission
(Case T-223/11)
2011/C 194/27
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Risse, R. Harbst and H. Haller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 16 114 147 plus interest at a rate of 8 percentage points above the German base rate since 20 April 2011; and










—


Order the defendant to reimburse the applicant, on a full indemnity basis, for attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred due to the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that under the contract concluded with the defendant, the applicant is entitled to claim cost compensation for the additional costs incurred.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that such cost compensation should be paid under German law, applicable to the contract, more specifically under Section 313 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6128 — Blackstone/Mivisa)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, merger control








C_2011122EN.01000501.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/5





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6128 — Blackstone/Mivisa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 122/02
On 25 March 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 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 32011M6128. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6112 — Good Energies/NEIF/Newco)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011122EN.01000602.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6112 — Good Energies/NEIF/Newco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 122/05
On 13 April 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 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 32011M6112. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6059 — Norbert Dentressangle/Laxey Logistics)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011122EN.01000502.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/5





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6059 — Norbert Dentressangle/Laxey Logistics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 122/03
On 21 March 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 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 32011M6059. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-229/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of Parliament, supplementary pension








C_2011211EN.01002602.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/26





Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament
(Case T-229/11)
2011/C 211/57
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Lord Inglewood (Penrith, United Kingdom), Georges Berthu (Longré, France), Guy Bono (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France), David Robert Bowe (Leeds, United Kingdom), Brendan Donnelly (London, United Kingdom), Catherine Guy-Quint (Cournon-d’Auvergne, France), Christine Margaret Oddy (Coventry, United Kingdom), Nicole Thomas-Mauro (Épernay, France), Gary Titley (Bolton, United Kingdom), Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy), and Maartje van Putten (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament unlawful;










—


annul the contested decisions;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament.
In support of their action, the applicants make four pleas in law on the substance, claiming:






—


infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and the principle of legal certainty;










—


infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in that the contested decisions raised the pensionable age by three years without transitional measures;










—


infringement of Article 29 of the Rules on Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the Quaestors and the Secretary General are responsible for the interpretation and strict application of those rules;










—


manifest error of assessment in that the Bureau’s decision of 1 April 2009, amending the rules serving as the basis for the contested decisions, is unsound.