do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-529/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, financial solvency, insurance premium, interpretation of the law, life assurance, national implementing measure








C_2013038EN.01001101.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
(Case C-529/12)
2013/C 38/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Andrea Lange

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Question referred

Must the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 (1), having regard to Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (2), be interpreted as precluding a provision — such as the fourth sentence of Paragraph 5a(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) in the version of the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Third Law implementing directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law) of 21 July 1994 — under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium even if the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation?


(1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50)

(2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6675 — GE/Accenture/Taleris)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, merger control, self-employed person, technology








C_2012360EN.01000101.xml










22.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 360/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6675 — GE/Accenture/Taleris)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 360/01
On 8 November 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 32012M6675. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
2012/758/EU: European Council Decision of 22 November 2012 appointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: European Council
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








L_2012336EN.01008001.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 336/80








            EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 22 November 2012
         
appointing a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank
(2012/758/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 283(2) thereof,


Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,


Having regard to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (1),


Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),


Having regard to the opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),

Whereas:







(1)


The term of office of Mr José Manuel GONZÁLEZ-PÁRAMO, member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, expired on 31 May 2012 and it is therefore necessary to appoint a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.












(2)


The European Council wishes to appoint Mr Yves MERSCH who, in its view, fulfils all the requirements set out in Article 283(2) of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Yves MERSCH is hereby appointed a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years as from 15 December 2012.


Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 November 2012.


For the European Council


The President

H. VAN ROMPUY
            





(1)  
            OJ C 215, 21.7.2012, p. 4.

(2)  Opinion delivered on 25 October 2012 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)  
            OJ C 218, 24.7.2012, p. 3.
Case C-219/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Brain Products GmbH v BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Scope — Interpretation of the concept of ‘medical device’ — Product marketed for non-medical use — Investigation of a physiological process — Free movement of goods)
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, medical device, terminology








C_2013026EN.01000702.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Brain Products GmbH v BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn
(Case C-219/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Scope - Interpretation of the concept of ‘medical device’ - Product marketed for non-medical use - Investigation of a physiological process - Free movement of goods)
2013/C 26/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brain Products GmbH

Defendants: BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21) — Interpretation of the term ‘medical device’ — Application of the directive to an article which is intended for purposes of investigation of a physiological process and which is marketed for a non-medical purpose

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘medical device’ covers an object conceived by its manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of investigation of a physiological process only if it is intended for a medical purpose.


(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6790 — Mittal Investments/Certain UK Assets of Anglo American and Lafarge) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, investment company, iron and steel industry, merger control, mining industry








C_2012360EN.01000901.xml










22.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 360/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6790 — Mittal Investments/Certain UK Assets of Anglo American and Lafarge)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 360/07






1.


On 16 November 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Mittal Investments Sàrl (‘Mittal Investments’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Tarmac SPV and Lafarge SPV by way of purchase of shares. Tarmac SPV and Lafarge SPV are special purpose vehicles established by Anglo American plc (‘Anglo American’, UK) and Lafarge SA (‘Lafarge’, France) respectively to hold assets that each company must sell as a condition of the UK Competition Commission's clearance of a proposed joint venture between Anglo American and Lafarge.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Mittal Investments: investment company affiliated with ArcelorMittal SA, a globally active steel and mining company,










—


for Tarmac SPV and Lafarge SPV: assets that are used for the production of aggregates, high purity limestone, cement, asphalt and ready-mix concrete in the UK.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6790 — Mittal Investments/Certain UK Assets of Anglo American and Lafarge, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
2012/715/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 22 November 2012 establishing a list of third countries with a regulatory framework applicable to active substances for medicinal products for human use and the respective control and enforcement activities ensuring a level of protection of public health equivalent to that in the Union, in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Switzerland, health control, import (EU), medicinal product, public health








L_2012325EN.01001501.xml










23.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 325/15








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION
         
of 22 November 2012
         
establishing a list of third countries with a regulatory framework applicable to active substances for medicinal products for human use and the respective control and enforcement activities ensuring a level of protection of public health equivalent to that in the Union, in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2012/715/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), and in particular Article 111b(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 111b(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC a third country may request the Commission to assess whether its regulatory framework applicable to active substances exported to the Union and the respective control and enforcement activities ensure a level of protection of public health equivalent to that of the Union in order to be included in a list of third countries ensuring an equivalent level of protection of public health.












(2)


Switzerland requested, by letter dated 4 April 2012, to be listed in accordance with Article 111b(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC. The equivalence assessment by the Commission confirmed that the requirements of that Article were fulfilled. In exercising this equivalence assessment, account was taken of the agreement on mutual recognition (2) as referred to in Article 51(2) of that Directive between Switzerland and the Union,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The list of third countries referred to in Article 111b(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.


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




Done at Brussels, 22 November 2012.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

(2)  
            OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 369.




ANNEX






Third country


Remarks




Switzerland
Case C-89/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission (Appeals — Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal — Burden of proof — Distortion of the evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Amount of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fine, general legal principle, jurisdiction, principle of proportionality, proof, rights of the defence, transport under customs control








C_2013026EN.01000401.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission
(Case C-89/11 P P) (1)

(Appeals - Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal - Burden of proof - Distortion of the evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Principle of proportionality)
2013/C 26/06
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: E.ON Energie AG (represented by: A. Röhling, F. Dietrich and R. Pfromm, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — E.ON Energie v Commission (T-141/08) in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 377 final of 30 January 2008 relating to a fine pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for breach of seal — Breach of general principles of law, such as the presumption of innocence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ and of proportionality, and the rules relating the burden and taking of evidence — Breach of the obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders E.ON Energie AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
Notice concerning the entry into force, between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway, of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EFTA countries, Schengen Agreement, application of EU law, comitology, power of implementation








L_2012323EN.01000101.xml










22.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 323/1







Notice concerning the entry into force, between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway, of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis


The abovementioned Arrangement (1) was signed in Brussels on 22 September 2011. As the procedures necessary for the entry into force of this Arrangement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway have been completed on 31 October 2012, this Arrangement will enter into force as far as the Kingdom of Norway is concerned, in accordance with Article 7 of the Arrangement, on 1 December 2012.


(1)  
            OJ L 103, 13.4.2012, p. 4.
Case C-600/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes — Treatment of dividends and interest paid to non-resident institutions — Deduction of operating costs directly linked to the receipt of income in the form of dividends and interest — Burden of proof)
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, administrative expenditure (EU), free movement of capital, infringement of EU law, proof, supplementary pension, tax relief, tax system








C_2013026EN.01000302.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-600/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes - Treatment of dividends and interest paid to non-resident institutions - Deduction of operating costs directly linked to the receipt of income in the form of dividends and interest - Burden of proof)
2013/C 26/05
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and C. Schillemans, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and by G. Facenna, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 63 TFEU and of Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — National legal provisions on the taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes, granting certain fiscal advantages only in respect of dividends and interest paid to resident institutions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany;










3.


Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.