do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italy/Gemeaz Cusin)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, catering, economic concentration, merger control, town planning








C_2012121EN.01001801.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/18





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italy/Gemeaz Cusin)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 121/03
On 23 March 2012, 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 32012M6513. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-197/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, VAT, carriage of passengers, infringement of EU law, international waters, maritime shipping, payable service, tax exemption








C_2012217EN.01000701.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/7





Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-197/12)
2012/C 217/13
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by not making the exemption from VAT of transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive, (1) in particular Article 148(a), (c) and (d) thereof;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Commission claims that the exemption from VAT of the transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts (French General Tax Code) (CGI) was not made conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities. That condition that vessels must be used on the high seas was added to the legislative provisions regulating VAT in France in response to the Commission’s reasoned opinion addressed to the national authorities. However, the bringing of Article 262, Part II(2), of the CGI into line with the VAT directive was rendered ineffective by an explanatory ministerial ruling binding on the administrative authorities, published subsequent to the legislative amendment, which does not mention the condition that vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas, although this was provided for by the legislation.
In the Commission’s view, none of the arguments put forward by the defendant in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, concerning, inter alia, the strict interpretation of Article 148(a) of the VAT Directive and the overly restrictive interpretation of the condition that vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas, can justify the failure to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned directive. Furthermore, as regards Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC, relied on by the French authorities, this cannot justify a derogation from the principle that exemptions must be subject to strict interpretation.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6533 — Goldman Sachs/Advent International/TransUnion Corp)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, credit, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2012121EN.01001901.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/19





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6533 — Goldman Sachs/Advent International/TransUnion Corp)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 121/05
On 17 April 2012, 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 32012M6533. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-456/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración del Estado (Free movement of goods — Articles 34 TFEU and 37 TFEU — National legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products — Rule concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions — Justification — Consumer protection)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free competition, free movement of goods, import (EU), tobacco industry








C_2012174EN.01000602.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración del Estado
(Case C-456/10) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Articles 34 TFEU and 37 TFEU - National legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products - Rule concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products - Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions - Justification - Consumer protection)
2012/C 174/07
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT)

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Intervening parties: Unión de Asociaciones de Estanqueros de España, Logivend SLU, Organización Nacional de Asociaciones de Estanqueros

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 34 TFEU — National monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products — Prohibition of tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products imposed for the benefit of wholesalers — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products from other Member States.


(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.