do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, EU waters, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish








C_2012212EN.01000301.xml










19.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/3





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2012/C 212/03
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


31.5.2012




Duration


31.5.2012-31.12.2012




Member State


Denmark




Stock or Group of stocks


SAN/*234_1 and SAN/*234_2




Species


Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.)




Zone


EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV excluding waters within six miles of UK baselines at Shetland, Fair Isle and Foula.




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


—






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-160/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Article 136 — Exemptions — Articles 313 to 315 — Special margin scheme — Supply of second-hand vehicles by a taxable dealer — Vehicles previously supplied exempt from VAT to a taxable dealer by another taxable person which had a right of partial deduction of input tax)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT, basis of tax assessment, motor vehicle, tax relief, trading margin








C_2012295EN.01001102.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
(Case C-160/11) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Article 136 - Exemptions - Articles 313 to 315 - Special margin scheme - Supply of second-hand vehicles by a taxable dealer - Vehicles previously supplied exempt from VAT to a taxable dealer by another taxable person which had a right of partial deduction of input tax)
2012/C 295/18
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 136, 313(1), 314 and 315 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Sale of second-hand vehicles to a final consumer — Application of the margin scheme where the dealer purchased the vehicle exempt from tax from a person which itself benefited from a partial deduction of input tax

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 313(1) and 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Articles 136 and 315 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer is not eligible for the application of the margin scheme where it supplies motor vehicles considered to be second-hand goods, within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive, which it has previously acquired exempt from VAT from another taxable person which had only a right of partial deduction of input VAT paid on the purchase price of those vehicles.


(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
Case C-470/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Garkalns SIA v Rīgas dome (Article 49 EC — Restrictions on freedom to provide services — Equal treatment — Obligation of transparency — Betting and gaming — Casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls — Obligation to obtain the prior agreement of the municipality of the place of establishment — Discretion — Substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned — Justifications — Proportionality)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, administrative transparency, freedom to provide services, game of chance, liberalisation of trade, services of general interest








C_2012295EN.01001602.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/16





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Garkalns SIA v Rīgas dome
(Case C-470/11) (1)

(Article 49 EC - Restrictions on freedom to provide services - Equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Betting and gaming - Casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls - Obligation to obtain the prior agreement of the municipality of the place of establishment - Discretion - Substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned - Justifications - Proportionality)
2012/C 295/27
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Garkalns SIA

Defendant: Rīgas dome

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU (Article 49 EC) — National legislation providing, for the purpose of limiting betting and gaming, a system of authorisation for the establishment of casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls — Refusal to grant authorisation for the development of an amusement arcade on the ground that the organisation of betting and gaming in the premises envisaged would substantially impair the interests of the residents of the local area

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on local authorities a broad discretion in enabling them to refuse authorisation to open a casino, amusement arcade or bingo hall on grounds of ‘substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned’, provided that that legislation is genuinely intended to reduce opportunities for gambling and to limit activities in that domain in a consistent and systematic manner or to ensure the maintenance of public order and in so far as the competent authorities exercise their powers of discretion in a transparent manner, so that the impartiality of the authorisation procedures can be monitored, it being for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.


(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
Case C-44/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG (Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 56(1)(e) — Article 135(1)(f) and (g) — Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management))
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, investment, provision of services, securities, tax exemption








C_2012295EN.01000702.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/7





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG
(Case C-44/11) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56(1)(e) - Article 135(1)(f) and (g) - Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management))
2012/C 295/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst

Defendant: Deutsche Bank AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56(1)(e) and Article 135(1)(f) and (g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets carried out for private clients

Operative part of the judgment







1.


A securities-based assets management service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely where a taxable person for remuneration and on the basis of his own discretion takes decisions on the purchase and sale of securities and implements those decisions by buying and selling the securities, consists of two elements which are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single economic supply.










2.


Article 135(1)(f) or (g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that securities-based asset management, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not exempt from value added tax under that provision.










3.


Article 56(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as covering not only the services referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Directive 2006/112, but also securities-based assets management services.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer systems, economic concentration, electronic component, merger control, wholesale selling








C_2012212EN.01000101.xml










19.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 212/01
On 25 June 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 32012M6515. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, merger control, self-employed person, venture capital








C_2012212EN.01000401.xml










19.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 212/04






1.


On 9 July 2012 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which ABN AMRO Effecten Compagnie B.V. (‘AAEC’, the Netherlands), a wholly owned subsidiary of ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (‘ABN AMRO’, the Netherlands) and Entero B.V. (‘Entero’, the Netherlands), a wholly owned subsidiary of ING Bank N.V (‘ING’, the Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of BMC Investments B.V. and certain of its subsidiaries (‘BMC’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AAEC: specialises in holding equity stakes for ABN AMRO(for example following restructurings),










—


Entero: specialises in risk bearing capital (for example by holding equity stakes following restructurings),










—


ABN AMRO: large financial institution,










—


ING: large financial institution,










—


BMC: consultancy and management firm specialising in consultancy services for the Dutch public sector.














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.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments, 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-264/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartel — Penalty — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Probative value of statements made in the context of the leniency policy)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copper, exchange of information, fine, plumbing equipment, price agreement








C_2012295EN.01001401.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/14





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl v European Commission
(Case C-264/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartel - Penalty - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Probative value of statements made in the context of the leniency policy)
2012/C 295/22
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl (represented by: J. Brück, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-379/06 Kaimer and Others v Commission by which the General Court dismissed in part the appellants’ action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the copper and copper alloy fittings sector or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the appellants — Distortion of the evidence — Error of assessment regarding the probative value of statements made in the context of the leniency policy — Infringement of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG and Sanha Italia Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.