do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Opinion of 11 June 2012 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), located at Cadarache, France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
Date: 2012-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, civil defence, nuclear accident, nuclear reactor, radioactive effluent, storage of waste, waste disposal








C_2012166EN.01000101.xml










12.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/1





COMMISSION OPINION
of 11 June 2012
relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), located at Cadarache, France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
(Only the French text is authentic)
2012/C 166/01
The assessment below is carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation.
On 12 October 2011, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from ITER.
On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 9 January 2012 and provided by the French authorities on 31 January 2012 and on 6 March 2012, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:






1.


The distance from the site to the nearest Member States, in this case Italy and Spain, are 120 km and 260 km respectively.










2.


Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents are unlikely to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that is significant from the point of view of health.










3.


Solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before transfer to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in France.










4.


In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population in another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health.




In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from ITER located at the Cadarache site in France, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State that would be significant from the point of view of health.

Done at Brussels, 11 June 2012.


For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission
Case T-259/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Alban Giacomo v Commission
Date: 2012-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bolt and screw industry, fine, glass, restriction on competition








C_2012227EN.01003301.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/33





Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Alban Giacomo v Commission
(Case T-259/12)
2012/C 227/55
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Alban Giacomo SpA (Romano d’Ezzelino, Italy) (represented by: S. Nanni Costa, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, if necessary by having recourse to the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 261 TFEU;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-248/12 Carl Fuhr GmbH & C. KG v Commission.
The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.






1.


First plea, alleging that the determination of the duration of the infringement ascribed to Alban Giacomo SpA was unlawful.






—


By the first plea, the applicant submits that the infringement established in its case ended at the time of the last meeting at which it particpated, namely on 11 September 2006, and not at the time of the inspections carried out by the Commission on 3 July 2007.










—


The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) it has not been established that during the meeting held on 11 September 2006 the applicant concluded an agreement on price increases for 2007; (ii) it has not been established that the applicant implemented the purported agreement concerning price increases for 2007; (iii) it has not been established that the applicant remained in contact with competitors after the meeting of 11 September 2006.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on Alban Giacomo SpA is unlawful, in so far as it is contrary to the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence and the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality.






—


By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibilty vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundametal princples of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence.










—


The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant.
Case F-61/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-06-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: transfer of pension rights








C_2012227EN.01003802.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/38





Action brought on 11 June 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
(Case F-61/12)
2012/C 227/65
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of proposals for transfer of pension rights acquired before entering the service of the Commission on the basis of the calculation taking into account new GIP (general implementing provisions) entering into force after the applicants’ applications for transfer.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates in force when their applications for transfer of pension rights were made;










—


So far as necessary, annul the decisions concerning calculation of the value of their pension rights acquired before they entered the service of the Commission;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Council Decision of 11 June 2012 adopting the Council position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2012
Date: 2012-06-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, draft budget (EU), general budget (EU)








C_2012167EN.01001501.xml










13.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/15





COUNCIL DECISION
of 11 June 2012
adopting the Council position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2012
2012/C 167/04
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as last amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1081/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 (2), and in particular Article 37 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union's budget for the financial year 2012 was definitively adopted on 1 December 2011 (3),










—


on 16 April 2012, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2012,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council's position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2012 was adopted on 11 June 2012.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Luxembourg, 11 June 2012.


For the Council


The President

I. AUKEN




(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1, with Corrigenda in OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 43 and in OJ L 99, 14.4.2007, p. 18.

(2)  OJ L 311, 26.11.2010, p. 9.

(3)  OJ L 56, 29.2.2012, with Corrigendum in OJ L 79, 19.3.2012.
Case C-290/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA
Date: 2012-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: temporary employment, temporary employment agency, work contract








C_2012243EN.01000902.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA
(Case C-290/12)
2012/C 243/17
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Oreste Della Rocca

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Questions referred







1.


Taking into account the remark interpolated in paragraph 36 of the Order of 15 September 2010 in Case C-386/09 Briot [2010] ECR I-8471, does Directive 1999/70/EC (1) — and, in particular, Clause 2 [of the framework agreement set out in the Annex thereto] — also refer to the fixed-term employment relationship between worker and temporary employment agency or between worker and user, and does Directive 1999/70/EC accordingly regulate those relationships?










2.


In the absence of other prohibitive measures, does a provision which permits the specification, in the employment contract with a temporary employment agency, of a date on which that contract is to end, as well as its successive renewal, not on the basis of technical, organisational or production requirements of the agency in connection with the specific temporary employment relationship, but on the basis of general reasons relating to the worker, unconnected with the specific employment relationship, meet the requirements under Clause 5(1)(a) [of the framework agreement set out in the Annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC, or can it constitute a circumvention of that directive, and must the objective reasons referred to in Clause 5(1)(a) of [the above framework agreement] be set down in a document and must they relate to the specific temporary employment relationship and its successive renewal, rendering the reference to general objective requirements which served as justification for that somministrazione contract being drawn up incapable of meeting the condition set out in Clause 5(1)(a), or unsuitable for those purposes?










3.


Does Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the Annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC preclude the consequences of abuse from being made the responsibility of a third party, in this case, the user?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Case C-292/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus
Date: 2012-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: restriction on competition, services contract, storage of waste, waste recycling








C_2012243EN.01001001.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus
(Case C-292/12)
2012/C 243/18
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ragn-Sells AS

Defendant: Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

Questions referred







(a)


Are Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary to any of them for a Member State to permit an undertaking which operates a specific waste treatment facility to be granted an exclusive right to process municipal waste in a specified area, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km?










(b)


Is Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it is not contrary thereto for a Member State to regard, first, the collection and transport of waste and, secondly, the processing of waste as services in the general economic interest, but to separate those services from each other, thereby restricting free competition in the waste treatment market?










(c)


In a procedure for the award of a concession for the service of collecting and transporting waste, a condition of which is that two undertakings are granted an exclusive right to treat waste in the area designated in the concession agreement, may the applicability of the provisions of competition law in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be excluded?










(d)


Is Article 16(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of the principle of proximity, restrict competition and permit the undertaking operating the waste treatment facility nearest to the area in which the waste occurs to be granted an exclusive right to process the waste, in return for consideration, where a number of competing undertakings owning a number of different waste treatment facilities which satisfy the environmental requirements and use equivalent technologies are operating within a radius of 260 km?






(1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).