do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 12 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.793 — EPH and others — Rapporteur: Sweden
Date: 2012-03-12
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: dominant position, electronic mail, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2012316EN.01000501.xml










19.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/5





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 12 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.793 — EPH and others
Rapporteur: Sweden
2012/C 316/03






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s qualification of the two incidents relating to the handling of e-mails as a refusal to submit to an inspection according to Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the infringement of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, i.e. the refusal to submit to the inspection, was committed negligently with regard to the unblocking of an e-mail account and intentionally with regard to the diversion of incoming e-mails.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the two incidents relating to the handling of e-mails constitute a single infringement.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors, s.r.o. are each liable for the infringement.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors taken into account when calculating the level of the fine for Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors, s.r.o. pursuant to Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission.










7.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 12 March 2012 regarding an amending decision relating to Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate — Rapporteur: Bulgaria
Date: 2012-03-12
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: dominant position, fine, sodium








C_2012162EN.01000401.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/4





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 12 March 2012 regarding an amending decision relating to Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate
Rapporteur: Bulgaria
2012/C 162/05






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees that the duration and the fine should be reduced for the addressee.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.










3.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-116/12: Action brought on 12 March 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council
Date: 2012-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: CCT duties, agricultural product, chemical product, common customs tariff, fishery product, import restriction, industrial product, principle of proportionality, tariff quota








C_2012126EN.01002501.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/25





Action brought on 12 March 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council
(Case T-116/12)
2012/C 126/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Tioxide Europe Ltd (Billingham, United Kingdom); Tioxide Europe Srl (Scarlino, Italy); Tioxide Europe SL (Huelva, Spain); and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Arts, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 of 19 December 2011 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (OJ L 349, p. 1), insofar as it suspends the import duty levied on rutile titanium dioxide containing by weight 90 % or more of titanium dioxide, not more than 4 % of aluminium hydroxide and not more than 6 % of silicon dioxide, under CN code 3206 11 00;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure in duty to provide reasons






—


By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Council has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the import duty in relation to the relevant products;














2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment






—


By their second plea, the applicants consider that Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 infringes Articles 31 and 32 TFEU since the Council, by basing itself on an unlawful proposal of the Commission without any further examination of the relevant facts, has committed a manifest error of assessment;














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of principle of proportionality






—


By their third plea, the applicants further submit that the Council has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a tariff suspension under the contested Regulation, as opposed to the less onerous measure available to it, i.e. a tariff quota, since ‘identical, equivalent or substitute products’ were being manufactured within the Union.
Case C-134/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 March 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea) v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea
Date: 2012-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, civil servant, civil servants’ union, pay cut








C_2012138EN.01000802.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/8






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 March 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea) v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea
(Case C-134/12)
(2012/C 138/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea (the Tulcea Inspectorate of Police))

Defendant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding reductions in remuneration such as those imposed by the Romanian State under Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?










2.


Must the provisions of Article 15(3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whereby the Romanian Government was required to inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of its intention to adopt measures to reduce remuneration and to specify the time-limit laid down for implementing them, be interpreted as rendering invalid Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?