do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-176/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, bank, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, rights of the defence








C_2013171EN.01002002.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/20





Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union
(Case C-176/13 P)
2013/C 171/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10;










—


give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures;










—


order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2012 in Case T-496/10, Bank Mellat v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:






1.


The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;










2.


The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise;










3.


The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file;










4.


The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:






—


it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities;










—


it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources;










—


it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6813 — McCain Foods Group/Lutosa Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, frozen product, merger control, potato








C_2013102EN.01000601.xml










9.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6813 — McCain Foods Group/Lutosa Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 102/06






1.


On 3 April 2013 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking McCain Foods Group Inc. (‘McCain’, Canada), through its subsidiary McCain Foods Belgium NV (‘McCain Foods’, Belgium) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of G&L Van den Broeke-Olsene NV, (Belgium), Vanelo NV, (Belgium), and Lutosa France SARL (together the ‘Lutosa Business’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for McCain and its subsidiaries: production and sale of frozen, chilled and dehydrated potato products (French fries, potato specialties and potato flakes), pizzas, appetizers, oven meals, juices and desserts,










—


for the Lutosa Business: production and sale of frozen, chilled and dehydrated potato products.














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.6813 — McCain Foods Group/Lutosa Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6898 — RAG Stiftung/Evonik Industries) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, mining operation, real estate business








C_2013102EN.01000701.xml










9.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6898 — RAG Stiftung/Evonik Industries)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 102/07






1.


On 2 April 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 RAG Stiftung (Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Evonik Industries AG (Germany). The concentration is brought about by a change to the shareholders’ agreement governing the relations between shareholders RAG Stiftung and private equity firm CVC Capital Partners who currently hold joint control over Evonik Industries AG.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


RAG Stiftung wholly owns RAG AG, active in hard coal production in Germany, import of hard coal, development of land use concepts for former industrial areas and provision of laboratory services in the area of solid fuels,










—


Evonik Industries AG is internationally active in the production and marketing of specialty chemicals for different purposes and owns and manages residential real estate in Germany. Evonik also holds a minority stake in the German energy provider Steag.














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.6898 — RAG Stiftung/Evonik Industries, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




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 T-102/10: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Südzucker and Others v Commission (Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Partial annulment and declaration of nullity of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: isoglucose, production aid, sugar levy, white sugar








C_2013156EN.01004301.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/43





Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Südzucker and Others v Commission
(Case T-102/10) (1)

(Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Partial annulment and declaration of nullity of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 156/80
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Südzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt (Mannheim, Germany); Agrana Zucker GmbH (Vienna, Austria); Südzucker Polska S.A. (Wroclaw, Poland); Raffinerie tirlemontoise (Brussels, Belgium) and Saint Louis Sucre SA (Paris, France) (represented by: H.-J. Prieß and B. Sachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Diez Moreno and subsequently by: A. Rubio Gonzâlez, abogados del Estado), and Republic of Lithuania (represented initially by: R. Janeckaitè and R. Krasuckaitè, and subseqeuntly by: R. Krasuckaitè and R. Makevičienè, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and S. Hathaway and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer and A. Robinson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those of Südzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt, Agrana Zucker GmbH, Südzucker Polska S.A., Raffinerie tirlemontoise and Saint Louis Sucre SA.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Lithuania shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case T-28/12: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Adoption of a new regulation — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, alcohol, anti-dumping duty, import (EU)








C_2013164EN.01001702.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/17





Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council
(Case T-28/12) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Adoption of a new regulation - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 164/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Kabil-Batam, Indonesia); Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd, (Singapore, Singapore); and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (Dessau-Roβlau, Germany) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH.










3.


The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals, Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH.










4.


Sasol Olefins & Surfactants and Sasol Germany shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
Case T-66/10: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich v Commission (Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Partial annulment and declaration of nullity of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: isoglucose, production aid, sugar levy, white sugar








C_2013156EN.01004202.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/42





Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich v Commission
(Case T-66/10) (1)

(Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Partial annulment and declaration of nullity of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 156/78
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Zuckerfabrik Jülich GmbH (formerly Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG) (Jülich, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Prieß and B. Sachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Diez Moreno and subsequently by: A. Rubio Gonzâlez, abogados del Estado), and Republic of Lithuania (represented initially by: R. Janeckaitè and R. Krasuckaitè, and subseqeuntly by: R. Krasuckaitè and R. Makevičienè, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those of Zuckerfabrik Jülich GmbH.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Lithuania shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case C-85/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, VAT, infringement of EU law, tax relief








C_2013156EN.01000301.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-85/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)
2013/C 156/03
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and by M. Hall, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Case C-173/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: gender equality, pension scheme, sexual discrimination








C_2013171EN.01002001.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales
(Case C-173/13)
2013/C 171/40
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone

Defendants: Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locale

Questions referred







1.


Do Article L. 24 and Article R. 37, read in conjunction, of the Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by the Finance (Amendment) Law No 2004-1485 of 30 December 2004 and by Decree No 2005-449 of 10 May 2005, indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










2.


Does Article 15 of Decree 2003-1306 of 26 December 2003 on the retirement scheme for civil servants affiliated to the Caisse nationale de retraites des agents des collectivités locales indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union?










3.


In the event that one of the first two questions is answered in the affirmative, can such indirect discrimination be justified on the basis of Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6832 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Ainscough)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, building materials, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2013102EN.01000101.xml










9.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6832 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Ainscough)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 102/01
On 14 March 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 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 32013M6832. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-86/10: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — British Sugar v Commission (Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Annulment and declaration of invalidity in part of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after bringing of the action — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: isoglucose, production aid, sugar levy, white sugar








C_2013156EN.01004203.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/42





Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — British Sugar v Commission
(Case T-86/10) (1)

(Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Annulment and declaration of invalidity in part of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 156/79
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: British Sugar plc (London (United Kingdom)) (represented by: initially by K. Lasok QC, G. Facenna, Barrister, W. Robinson, P. Doris and D. Das, Solicitors, then by K. Lasok QC, G. Facenna, W. Robinson and D. Das)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and P. Rossi, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by F. Díez Moreno, then by A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado); and Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Janeckaitė and R. Krasuckaitė, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Drēviņa and K. Krasovska, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and S. Hathaway, and then by Behzadi-Spencer and A. Robinson, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on this action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of British Sugar plc.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.