do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-443/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy)) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Grillo Star Srl, in liquidation (Directive 2008/7/EC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) — Scope — Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)
Date: 2012-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indirect tax, investment company, registration of a company, registration tax, tax on capital








C_2012165EN.01000201.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/2





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy)) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Grillo Star Srl, in liquidation
(Case C-443/09) (1)

(Directive 2008/7/EC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) - Scope - Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)
2012/C 165/02
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CCIAA di Cosenza

Defendant: Grillo Star Srl, in liquidation

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Annual duty payable on account of registration in the register of companies maintained by the local chambers of commerce — Annual duty determined on a flat-rate basis — Concept of ‘duties in the form of fees or dues’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as not precluding a duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, payable annually by all undertakings on account of their registration in the register of undertakings, even if that registration has constituent effect for capital companies and even if the duty is also payable by those companies for the period during which they only carry on activities preparatory to operating a business.


(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 338/2012 of 19 April 2012 on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of April 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009
Date: 2012-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beef, import (EU), import licence, tariff quota








L_2012108EN.01001501.xml










20.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 108/15








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 338/2012
of 19 April 2012
         
on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of April 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009


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 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.












(2)


Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 April 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Import licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 April 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,408411 %.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 April 2012.


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 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

(3)  
            OJ L 182, 15.7.2009, p. 25.
Case C-549/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Abuse — Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates)
Date: 2012-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dominant position, exclusive distribution agreement, fine, waste recycling








C_2012165EN.01000601.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission
(Case C-549/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates)
2012/C 165/09
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, J. Midthjell, advokat and A. J. Ryan, solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06 Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 March 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra) imposing a fine of EUR 24 million on the appellants for abusing their dominant position by engaging in practices involving exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates in order to prevent or delay the entry of other manufacturers on the market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or substantial reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB and Tomra Butikksystemer AS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
Case C-221/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeals — Second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Non-contractual liability of the Union — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Decision withdrawing marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone)
Date: 2012-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, market approval, medicinal product








C_2012165EN.01000302.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-221/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Non-contractual liability of the Union - Conditions - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Decision withdrawing marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone)
2012/C 165/05
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Artegodan GmbH (represented by: U. Reese, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Heller, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action for compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the adoption of Commission Decision C(2000) 453 of 9 March 2000, concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Erroneous assessment of the criteria as to the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Artegodan GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Call for proposals under the work programme of the Artemis Joint Undertaking
Date: 2012-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation policy, information technology, invitation to tender








C_2012114EN.01000301.xml










19.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/3





Call for proposals under the work programme of the Artemis Joint Undertaking
2012/C 114/03
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the Artemis Joint Undertaking.
Proposals are invited for the following call: Artemis-2012-1.
Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/calls
Case C-182/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 19 April 2012 — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Középdunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
Date: 2012-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, interpretation of the law, labour relations, means of transport, work contract








C_2012217EN.01000601.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 19 April 2012 — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Középdunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
(Case C-182/12)
2012/C 217/10
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gábor Fekete

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Középdunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Question referred

Under Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the implementing Regulation’) is authorisation granted by the owner of the means of transport established outside the (customs) territory sufficient to establish private use of the means of transport or is private use of the means of transport only possible in the framework of an employment relationship, and thus where provided for (by the owner) in the contract of employment?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code; OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.