do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-118/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron v Council (Dumping — Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for a new exporter review — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1, 2 and 11(4) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(4) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping legislation, chemical fertiliser, chemical salt, export price, import (EU), originating product








C_2013101EN.01001603.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/16





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron v Council
(Case T-118/10) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a new exporter review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(4) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(4) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
2013/C 101/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2009 of 18 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ 2009 L 338, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Acron OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case C-63/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, labour relations, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, work contract, working conditions








C_2013141EN.01001301.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli
(Case C-63/13)
2013/C 141/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fortuna Russo

Defendant: Comune di Napoli

Questions referred







1.


When is an employment relationship to be regarded as being for the public service of the ‘State’, for the purposes of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and, in particular, within the meaning of the expression ‘specific sectors and/or categories of workers’, and thus capable of justifying results that are different from those which ensue from employment relationships in the private sector?










2.


Having regard to the explanations contained in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of employment conditions contained in Clause 4 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC also include the consequences of the unlawful interruption of an employment relationship? If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for in national law for the unlawful interruption of fixed-term employment relationships and for the unlawful interruption of employment relationships of indefinite duration justifiable under Clause 4?










3.


By virtue of the principle of sincere cooperation, is a State precluded from presenting to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a request for a preliminary ruling a deliberately untrue description of a national legislative framework and are the national courts obliged, in the absence of any alternative interpretation of national law that also satisfies the obligations deriving from membership of the European Union to the same degree, to interpret, where possible, national law in accordance with the interpretation given by the State?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

(2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6831 — General Motors Company/Parts of Ally Financial)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2013035EN.01000301.xml










7.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6831 — General Motors Company/Parts of Ally Financial)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 35/04






1.


On 29 January 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which General Motors Company (‘General Motors’, US), through its subsidiary General Motors Financial Company Inc. (‘GM Financial’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1) (b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of Ally Financial Inc. (‘Ally Financial’, US) by way of purchase of shares in 35 legal entities, active in Europe and Latin America.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for General Motors Company: manufacture and supply of motor vehicles worldwide,










—


for Ally Financial: supply of automotive financing services, in Europe and Latin America.














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.6831 — General Motors Company/Parts of Ally Financial, 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-498/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Antonella Pedone v N (Preliminary references — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Requirement of link with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, income in addition to normal pay, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, legal aid








C_2013108EN.01001302.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/13





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Antonella Pedone v N
(Case C-498/12) (1)

(Preliminary references - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement of link with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
2013/C 108/26
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Antonella Pedone

Defendant: N

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that consultancy fees are to be reduced by half where the client has been granted legal aid

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6780 — EVN Netz/OÖ. Ferngas Netz/Gasnetz Steiermark/Gas Connect Austria/Aggm Austrian Gas Grid Management)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, energy supply, merger control, natural gas








C_2013035EN.01000101.xml










7.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6780 — EVN Netz/OÖ. Ferngas Netz/Gasnetz Steiermark/Gas Connect Austria/Aggm Austrian Gas Grid Management)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 35/01
On 29 January 2013, 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 German 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 32013M6780. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-235/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for a partial interim review — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping legislation, chemical fertiliser, chemical salt, export price, import (EU), originating product








C_2013101EN.01001502.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/15





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
(Case T-235/08) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a partial interim review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
2013/C 101/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Acron OAO (Moscow, Russia); and Dorogobuzh OAO (Moscow) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and subsequently by B. Evtimov, lawyers, and by D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K Talabér Ritz, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
Case T-459/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for a partial interim review — Expiry review — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical fertiliser, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product








C_2013101EN.01001601.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/16





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council
(Case T-459/08) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a partial interim review - Expiry review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
2013/C 101/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers, and subsequently by B. Evtimov and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B Driessen, Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
Case C-543/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Interpretation of Article 23 — Jurisdiction clause in a contract concluded between the manufacturer and the initial buyer of goods — Contract forming part of a chain of contracts transferring ownership — Whether that clause may be relied on against the sub-buyer of the goods)
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, transfer of property








C_2013108EN.01000201.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA
(Case C-543/10) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Interpretation of Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a contract concluded between the manufacturer and the initial buyer of goods - Contract forming part of a chain of contracts transferring ownership - Whether that clause may be relied on against the sub-buyer of the goods)
2013/C 108/02
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Refcomp SpA

Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Dispute between the sub-buyer of goods and the manufacturer — Scope of the jurisdiction clause in a chain of contracts under Community law

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer thereof cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who, in the course of a succession of contracts transferring ownership concluded between parties established in different Member States, purchased the goods and wishes to bring an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in that article.


(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013035EN.01000201.xml










7.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 February 2013
2013/C 35/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3517




JPY


Japanese yen


126,48




DKK


Danish krone


7,4597




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86310




SEK


Swedish krona


8,5895




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2348




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4230




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,732




HUF


Hungarian forint


294,23




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6999




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1868




RON


Romanian leu


4,3895




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3858




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3109




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3493




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4814




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6061




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6730




KRW


South Korean won


1 474,24




ZAR


South African rand


12,0593




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4238




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5865




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 117,76




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1864




PHP


Philippine peso


54,973




RUB


Russian rouble


40,5934




THB


Thai baht


40,267




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6869




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1056




INR


Indian rupee


71,8490






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-65/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — European Parliament v European Commission
Date: 2013-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EURES, Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, delegated decision, drafting of EU law, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2013108EN.01001702.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/17





Action brought on 7 February 2013 — European Parliament v European Commission
(Case C-65/13)
2013/C 108/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision [2012/733/EU] of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment and the re-establishment of EURES;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment, the European Parliament raises a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union. (1) By adopting the contested decision, the Commission has misused the powers conferred upon it by the European Union legislature.
Article 38 of that regulation confers only implementing powers on the Commission, the limits of which are set out in Article 291 TFEU. In the view of the Parliament, that article must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the adoption of acts of general application which supplement certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Only legislative acts or delegated acts within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU may supplement non-essential elements of a basic act.
The act adopted by the Commission, being an implementing act within the meaning of Article 291 TFEU, also supplements certain non-essential elements of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011. Accordingly, the Parliament submits that, if it is necessary to supplement non-essential elements of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011, the Commission, in the absence of powers to adopt delegated acts within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, ought to have made a proposal to the legislature supplementing or amending the basic act.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).