do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-96/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, product safety








C_2013114EN.01003102.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/31





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA
(Case T-96/10) (1)

(REACH - Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
2013/C 114/49
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV(Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s.(Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S(Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd(Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by Van Maldegem and Cana)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil (anthracene paste) (EC No 292-603-2) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in accordance with Article 59 of REACH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case C-424/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope — Occupational retirement pension schemes)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, VAT, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, tax exemption, tax harmonisation








C_2013123EN.01000501.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
(Case C-424/11) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope - Occupational retirement pension schemes)
2013/C 123/06
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd, National Association of Pension Funds Ltd, Ford Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Salaried Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Pension Scheme for Senior Staff Trustee Ltd

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Request for preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(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) — Exemptions — Scope of the exemption for the management of special investment funds — Inclusion of occupational retirement pension schemes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 135(1)(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 an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme is not a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of those provisions, management of which may be exempted from value added tax in the light of the objective of those directives and the principle of fiscal neutrality, where the members of the scheme do not bear the risk arising from the management of the fund and the contributions which the employer pays into the scheme are a means by which he complies with his legal obligations towards his employees.


(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
Case C-110/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2013 — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consolidated account, group of companies, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2013147EN.01001201.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2013 — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben
(Case C-110/13)
2013/C 147/21
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: HaTeFo GmbH

Defendant and respondent on a point of law: Finanzamt Haldensleben

Questions referred







1.








(a)


What requirements are to be set for a finding that persons are ‘acting jointly’ within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (1) (‘the SME Recommendation’): Is it simply sufficient in this respect that there is any enterprise-related cooperation between the natural persons with shareholdings in both enterprises, without disputes or conflicts of interest coming to light, or rather is some recognisably coordinated course of conduct by these persons required?










(b)


If some coordinated course of conduct is required: Does such conduct follow simply from purely de facto cooperation?














2.


Where no obligation to draw up consolidated accounts exists, is it necessary, in order to decide whether an enterprise is linked with another enterprise via a person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, to undertake, over and above an examination of the ‘relationships’ set out in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to the SME Recommendation, an overall economic examination, in which aspects such as property relationships — in this case particularly the fact that shareholders belong to one family —, the share structure and the degree of economic integration — in particular also the identity of the managing directors — of the enterprises in question are to be scrutinised?










3.


In the event that, also where the SME Recommendation applies, an overall economic examination going beyond the formal examination is possible: Does this presuppose the intention, or at least the risk, of circumventing the SME definition?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36.
Case C-178/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social — Spain) — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO) (Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Determination of length of service — Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff — Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, civil servant, contract staff, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, public administration, seniority, social policy, work contract








C_2013129EN.01000401.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/4





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social — Spain) — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
(Case C-178/12) (1)

(Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Determination of length of service - Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff - Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
2013/C 129/06
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rafaela Rivas Montes

Defendant: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo social — Interpretation of Article 45(4) TFEU — National legislation governing the method of calculation of length-of-service increments in the civil service — Application by a public authority of different rules according to whether the employment relationship is of a public service or of a contractual kind — Failure to take into account certain periods of service completed by contractual staff

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) by decision of 27 February 2012.


(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
Case C-275/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth (Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, tax system








C_2013123EN.01000301.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth
(Case C-275/11) (1)

(Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope)
2013/C 123/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Bayreuth

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that advisory services concerning investment in transferable securities, provided by a third party to an investment management company which is the manager of a special investment fund, fall within the concept of ‘management of special investment funds’ for the purposes of the exemption laid down in that provision, even if the third party has not acted on the basis of a mandate within the meaning of Article 5g of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as amended by Directive 2001/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013066EN.01000101.xml










7.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 March 2013
2013/C 66/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3035




JPY


Japanese yen


121,85




DKK


Danish krone


7,4556




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86440




SEK


Swedish krona


8,3159




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2301




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4250




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,565




HUF


Hungarian forint


298,55




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7008




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1495




RON


Romanian leu


4,3578




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3365




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2670




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3408




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1099




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5630




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6244




KRW


South Korean won


1 412,69




ZAR


South African rand


11,7980




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1066




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5928




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 638,96




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0497




PHP


Philippine peso


53,067




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9850




THB


Thai baht


38,792




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5631




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5647




INR


Indian rupee


71,3700






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6869 — GM/Ispol) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2013066EN.01003101.xml










7.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/31





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6869 — GM/Ispol)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 66/11






1.


On 1 March 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking General Motors Europe Holdings SL (‘GMEH’, Spain), belonging to the group General Motors Company (‘GM’, USA), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Ispol Holding BV G (‘Ispol’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for GM: production and sale of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles worldwide,










—


for Ispol: production and sale of automotive diesel engines for vehicles.














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.6869 — GM/Ispol, 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’).
Case C-128/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Portugal) — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo v BPN — Banco Português de Negócios SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — Failure to implement European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, civil servant, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, pay cut, public administration








C_2013129EN.01000301.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/3





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Portugal) — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo v BPN — Banco Português de Negócios SA
(Case C-128/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
2013/C 129/04
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo

Defendant: BPN — Banco Português de Negócios SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21(1) and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) — Observance of the principles of equality and non-discrimination and of the right to fair and just working conditions — National legislation providing for salary reductions for certain public sector workers

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal), made by decision of 6 January 2012.


(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.
Case T-93/10: Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v (ECHA) (REACH — Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, product safety








C_2013114EN.01003001.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/30





Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others v (ECHA)
(Case T-93/10) (1)

(REACH - Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
2013/C 114/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes (Luchana-Baracaldo, Spain); Cindu Chemicals BV, (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Deza, a.s., (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S, (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd, (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Rütgers Germany GmbH, (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV, (Zelzate, Belgium); and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o., established in Kędzierzyn-Koźle (Poland)) (represented by: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana)

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer,)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA published on 13 January 2010 identifying pitch, coal tar, high temperature (EC No 266-028-2) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.