do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-451/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Stim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Article 151(4) EC — Cultural diversity)
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, bilateral agreement, cable distribution, control of restrictive practices, copyright, holding company, music, proof, rights of the defence, satellite communications








C_2013156EN.01003702.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/37





Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Stim v Commission
(Case T-451/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Article 151(4) EC - Cultural diversity)
2013/C 156/65
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim) (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Thomas, Solicitor, and N. Pourbaix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Case C-179/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, United States, consulate, free movement of workers, social-security contribution








C_2013189EN.01000302.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans
(Case C-179/13)
2013/C 189/05
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Defendant: L.F. Evans

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2 and/or Article 16 of Regulation 1408/71 (1) be construed as meaning that a person like Evans, who is a national of a Member State, who exercised her right of freedom of movement for workers, to whom the social security legislation of the Netherlands was applicable and who then went to work as a member of the service staff of the Consulate General of the United States of America in the Netherlands, from the commencement of such work no longer falls under the personal scope of Regulation 1408/71?
If not:










2.








(a)


Must Article 3 of Regulation 1408/71 and/or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 (2) be construed as meaning that the application of privileged status to Evans, which in this case consists inter alia of not being compulsorily insured for the purposes of social security and of not paying contributions in that regard, should be considered a sufficient justification for discriminating on grounds of nationality?










(b)


What significance must be attached in that regard to the fact that in December 1999 Evans, when asked, opted for the continuation of the privileged status?










(1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

(2)  Council Regulation of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).
Case C-182/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) (United Kingdom) made on 12 April 2013 — Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, establishment, workplace








C_2013189EN.01000401.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) (United Kingdom) made on 12 April 2013 — Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited
(Case C-182/13)
2013/C 189/06
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty

Defendant: Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

Questions referred







1.


In the context of Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC (1), does ‘establishment’ have the same meaning as it has in the context of Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that Directive?










2.


If not, can ‘an establishment’, for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a)(ii), be constituted by an organisational sub-unit of an undertaking which consists of or includes more than one local employment unit?










3.


In Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive, does the phrase ‘at least 20’ refer to the number of dismissals across all of the employer's establishments, or does it instead refer to the number of dismissals per establishment? (In other words, is the reference to ‘20’ a reference to 20 in any particular establishment, or to 20 overall?)






(1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
OJ L 225, p. 16
Case T-392/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AEPI v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, bilateral agreement, copyright, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, music, proof, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2013156EN.01002602.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/26





Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AEPI v Commission
(Case T-392/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
2013/C 156/44
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by P. Xanthopoulos and T. Asprogerakas Grivas, then T. Asprogerakas Grivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted initially by M. Moustakali, then S. Dempegiotis, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE;










2.


Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that it refers to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as it concerns AEPI;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of AEPI’s costs;










5.


Orders AEPI to bear one half of its own costs;










6.


Orders the Commission and AEPI to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
Notice to economic operators — New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, agricultural product, import (EU), industrial product, suspension of customs duties








C_2013106EN.01001001.xml










12.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/10





Notice to economic operators — New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products
2013/C 106/08
Economic operators are informed that the Commission has received requests in accordance with the administrative arrangements foreseen in the Commission communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2011/C 363/02) (1) for the January round of 2014.
The list of the products for which a duty suspension is requested is now available on the Commission's thematic (Europa) website on the customs union (2).
Economic operators are also informed that the deadline for objections against new requests to reach the Commission, via the national administrations, is 13 June 2013 which is the date of the second scheduled meeting of the Economic Tariff Questions Group.
Interested operators are advised to consult the list regularly in order to be informed on the status of the requests.
More information on the autonomous tariff suspension procedure can be found on the Europa website:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/suspensions/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ C 363, 13.12.2011, p. 6.

(2)  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp?Lang=en
Case T-434/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Tono v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, bilateral agreement, cable distribution, control of restrictive practices, copyright, holding company, music, proof, rights of the defence, satellite communications








C_2013156EN.01003602.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/36





Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Tono v Commission
(Case T-434/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
2013/C 156/63
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tono (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: S. Teigum and A. Ringnes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Tono;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in the main proceedings;










4.


Orders Tono and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Case T-415/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, bilateral agreement, cable distribution, control of restrictive practices, copyright, holding company, music, proof, rights of the defence, satellite communications








C_2013156EN.01003001.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/30





Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission
(Case T-415/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
2013/C 156/51
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Collins, Solicitor, and M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Case T-419/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — LATGA-A v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, bilateral agreement, cable distribution, control of restrictive practices, copyright, holding company, music, proof, rights of the defence, satellite communications








C_2013156EN.01003201.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/32





Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — LATGA-A v Commission
(Case T-419/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
2013/C 156/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A) (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A);










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6807 — Mercuria Energy Asset Management/Sinomart KTS Development/Vesta Terminals)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, energy storage, merger control, oil industry








C_2013106EN.01000101.xml










12.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6807 — Mercuria Energy Asset Management/Sinomart KTS Development/Vesta Terminals)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 106/01
On 7 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 32013M6807. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013106EN.01000301.xml










12.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 April 2013
2013/C 106/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3119




JPY


Japanese yen


130,39




DKK


Danish krone


7,4563




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85200




SEK


Swedish krona


8,3138




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2187




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4770




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,942




HUF


Hungarian forint


297,79




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7009




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1124




RON


Romanian leu


4,3940




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3464




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2411




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3242




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1836




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5140




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6223




KRW


South Korean won


1 481,37




ZAR


South African rand


11,6910




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1288




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6203




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 737,87




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9796




PHP


Philippine peso


53,825




RUB


Russian rouble


40,4260




THB


Thai baht


38,084




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5876




MXN


Mexican peso


15,8661




INR


Indian rupee


71,5310






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.