do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-368/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group e.a./Commission
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, health risk, infringement of EU law, natural hazard








C_2011282EN.01002802.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/28





Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group e.a./Commission
(Case T-368/11)
2011/C 282/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium), SNF SAS (Andrezieux Boutheon, France) and Travetanche Injection SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12);










—


Order the Commission to pay the cost and expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging






—


that the contested Regulation contains manifest errors of appraisal in so far as the European Commission, firstly, relied on information that is not relevant, under the applicable legal framework, for the exposure of human beings and the environment in the EU, and, secondly, failed to identify risks resulting from acrylamide grouting, as per relevant applicable requirements, relying instead on information concerning the use of a different substance; as a result, the adoption of the said Regulation does not meet the conditions imposed by the relevant legal provisions;














2.


Second plea in law, alleging






—


that the contested Regulation infringes the principle of proportionality;














3.


Third plea in law, alleging






—


that the contested Regulation is inadequately reasoned, contrary to Article 296 TFEU.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011200EN.01000201.xml










8.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2011
2011/C 200/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4247




JPY


Japanese yen


115,64




DKK


Danish krone


7,4590




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89210




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0950




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2050




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7420




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,280




HUF


Hungarian forint


264,00




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7092




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9465




RON


Romanian leu


4,2068




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3342




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3275




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3738




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,0883




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7230




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7487




KRW


South Korean won


1 517,15




ZAR


South African rand


9,5925




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2118




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4020




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 174,76




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2902




PHP


Philippine peso


61,078




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9700




THB


Thai baht


43,240




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2341




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5459




INR


Indian rupee


63,3070






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6268 — Lundbeckfond Invest/Kirkbi Invest/Falck)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, health care profession, investment company, merger control








C_2011200EN.01000101.xml










8.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6268 — Lundbeckfond Invest/Kirkbi Invest/Falck)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 200/01
On 1 July 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 32011M6268. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-370/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Poland v Commission
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, fuel, harmonisation of prices, pollution








C_2011290EN.01000901.xml










1.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/9





Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-370/11)
2011/C 290/12
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Undersecretary of State)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 (notified under document C(2011) 2772) determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law






—


Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 194(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, by failing to take account of the particular characteristics of individual Member States concerning fuel and by calculating benchmarks on the basis of the reference efficiency of natural gas and taking that fuel as the reference fuel.














2.


Second plea in law






—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 191(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 191(3) TFEU by failing to take account, when drawing up the contested decision, of the diversity of the situations in individual regions of the European Union.














3.


Third plea in law






—


Infringement of Article 5(4) TEU (principle of proportionality) by setting the benchmarks in the contested decision at a more restrictive level than attainment of the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC requires.














4.


Fourth plea in law






—


Infringement of Article 10a, in conjunction with Article 1, of Directive 2003/87/EC and lack of competence for the European Commission to adopt the contested measure.
Case C-360/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, VAT rate, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure








C_2011282EN.01000802.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/8





Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-360/11)
2011/C 282/15
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to:






—


Medicinal substances which may be used habitually or are suited to the production of medicinal products, in accordance with paragraph 1(5) of the first section of Article 91 and paragraph 1(3) of the second section of Article 91 of the Ley española del IVA (Spanish Law on VAT);










—


Sanitary products, material, equipment and appliances which, viewed objectively, can be used only to prevent, diagnose, treat, alleviate or cure human or animal illnesses or ailments, but which are not ‘normally intended to alleviate or treat disabilities, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled’, in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(6) of the first section of Article 91 of the Spanish Law on VAT;










—


Aids and equipment which may be used essentially or primarily to treat physical disabilities in animals, in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 1(6) of Article 91 of the Spanish Law on VAT;










—


Aids and equipment essentially and primarily used to treat human disabilities, but which are not intended for the exclusive personal use of ‘the disabled’; the common understanding of this term is to be assumed, that is as being different from and more restrictive than the term ‘the sick’, in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 1(6) of the first section of Article 91 of the Spanish Law on VAT,




the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with Annex III thereto;










—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the system of reduced rates laid down in paragraph 1(5) and (6) of the first section of Article 91 and paragraph 1(3) of the second section of the Spanish Law on VAT goes beyond what is authorised by the VAT Directive, since it surpasses the possibilities granted to the Member States in categories 3 and 4 of Annex III to that directive. The interpretation of the Spanish authorities is at odds with the wording and general scheme of the directive and is not in line with the case-law, pursuant to which exceptions to the general rules of the common VAT system must be interpreted strictly.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6255 — Terex/Demag Cranes)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: construction equipment, economic concentration, exchange of information, hoisting equipment, merger control








C_2011200EN.01001401.xml










8.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6255 — Terex/Demag Cranes)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 200/06






1.


On 1 July 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 undertaking Terex Corporation, (‘Terex’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Demag Cranes (Germany) by way of public bid announced on 19 May 2011.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Terex: global manufacturer of machinery products used in construction, infrastructure, quarrying, mining, shipping, transportation, refining, energy and utilities,










—


for Demag Cranes: industrial cranes, crane components, harbour cranes and port automation technology.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6255 — Terex/Demag Cranes, 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’).
Case C-366/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, national implementing measure, public consultation, water management, watercourse








C_2011298EN.01001003.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/10





Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-366/11)
2011/C 298/20
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by not having prepared, by 22 December 2009, river basin district management plans (both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts) and by not having communicated to the Commission, by 22 March 2010, a copy of the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. (1) In addition, by having not commenced, by 22 December 2008 at the latest, the public information and consultation procedure concerning the draft river basin district management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive, and










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementation of Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council expired on 22 December 2003. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not taken all the measures necessary to implement the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.


(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.
Case C-365/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v TAP Portugal
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, air transport, indemnification, interpretation of the law, traveller








C_2011282EN.01001001.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v TAP Portugal
(Case C-365/11)
2011/C 282/18
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos

Defendant: TAP Portugal

Question referred

As a result of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 (1), in which it was held that Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (2) must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled where the time that they have lost due to the delayed flight is more than three hours, should the said articles be interpreted in the same way in the case of a flight that, having started on time at the place of departure, was delayed at the stop-over airport for three hours and fifty five minutes before taking off again because the airline, for operational reasons, decided to change equipment, where the equipment that replaced the previous equipment had already broken down prior to the stopover and needed a technical intervention, so that the flight arrived at the destination location with the said delay of three hours and fifty five minutes?


(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 4


(2)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6230 — Solvay/Rhodia)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2011200EN.01001201.xml










8.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6230 — Solvay/Rhodia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 200/04






1.


On 30 June 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 undertaking Solvay SA (‘Solvay’, Belgium) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Rhodia SA (‘Rhodia’, France) by way of public bid of 4 April 2011.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Solvay is the parent of a group of companies which are internationally active in the research, development, production, marketing and sale of chemicals and plastics,










—


Rhodia is a French company which develops, produces and sells specialty chemicals.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6230 — Solvay/Rhodia, 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’).
Case C-362/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, insurance indemnity, interpretation of the law, motor car, personal accident insurance, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2011282EN.01000902.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA
(Case C-362/11)
2011/C 282/17
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Serafim Gomes Oliveira

Defendant: Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA

Question referred

Is the provision of Portuguese law requiring compensation to be reduced in proportion to the fault of both parties in the accident in question, which occurred in November 2006 between a bicycle and a passenger vehicle with compulsory motor insurance, consistent with Community law, even though the cyclist was less than 20 % at fault?
Case C-359/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, gas supply, natural gas, price fluctuation








C_2011311EN.01001701.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG
(Case C-359/11)
2011/C 311/26
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alexandra Schulz

Defendant: Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG

Question referred

Is Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with point (b) and/or (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law on price variations in natural gas delivery contracts with domestic customers, who are supplied gas within the framework of the general duty to supply (standard-rate customers), satisfies the transparency requirements if, in that provision, the grounds, preconditions and scope of the price variation are not stipulated but customers are assured that gas suppliers will give them sufficient advance notice of any price increases and they have the right to terminate the contract if they are unwilling to accept the amended contractual terms and conditions as communicated?


(1)  OJ 1998 L 176, p. 57.
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request from a contracting entity
Date: 2011-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, award of contract, post office financial services, postal service, transport market, water supply








C_2011200EN.01001501.xml










8.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/15





Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC
Request from a contracting entity
2011/C 200/07
On 24 June 2011, the Commission received a request under Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 27 June 2011.
This request, made by Magyar Posta, concerns certain financial services (cf. fourth indent of Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2004/17/EC) in Hungary. Article 30 provides that the Directive does not apply where the activity in question is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not limited. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules.
The Commission has a period of three months, as from the working day referred to above, within which to take a decision on this request. The period therefore ends on 27 September 2011.
This period may be extended by three months. Notice of any such extension must be published.
Pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 30(6), further requests concerning certain financial services in Hungary, submitted before the period opened for this request expires, will not be regarded as subject to new procedures and will be dealt with as part of this request.


(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.