do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
European Parliament decision of 16 April 2013 concerning circumstances in which there is a tied vote on intervention in legal proceedings (interpretation of Rule 159(3))
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, parliamentary rules of procedure, parliamentary vote, recommendation (EU), result of the vote








C_2016045EN.01010001.xml










5.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/100





P7_TA(2013)0121
Tied vote on intervention in legal proceedings (interpretation of Rule 159(3))
European Parliament decision of 16 April 2013 concerning circumstances in which there is a tied vote on intervention in legal proceedings (interpretation of Rule 159(3))
(2016/C 045/19)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the letter of 20 March 2013 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,










—


having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure,












1.


Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 159(3):
‘Rule 159(3) is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a tied vote on a draft recommendation under Rule 128(4) not to intervene in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, such a tie does not signify the adoption of a recommendation that Parliament should intervene in those proceedings. In such a case, the committee responsible is to be deemed not to have expressed any recommendation.’;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.
Case F-35/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights








C_2013207EN.01005803.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/58





Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-35/13)
2013/C 207/98
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought







—


declare unlawful Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


annul the decisions of 28 September and 4 October 2012 to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before he took up his post, in connection with the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, on the basis of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2013 in Case E-7/13 — Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State (Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information — Principles governing charging — Transparency — Notion of cost — Self-financing requirements)
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, access to information, administrative transparency, costing, dissemination of information, public sector








C_2015092EN.01003301.xml










19.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/33





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 16 December 2013
in Case E-7/13
Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State
(Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information — Principles governing charging — Transparency — Notion of cost — Self-financing requirements)
(2015/C 92/07)
In Case E-7/13, Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/98/EC require that, when charges are made for the re-use of public sector information, a substantive examination must have been undertaken at the time when the charge is fixed. The examination must show that the total income from such charges does not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents, plus a reasonable return on investment. If the factors relevant to performing a calculation are uncertain, an estimate must at least be made. However, the calculation basis for the charges need only be made available upon request. This applies irrespective of whether the charge is set in legislation, by the relevant public authority or by other means.










2.


When the cost pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, account may be taken of the cost incurred by a public sector body in connection with the initial collection and production of the documents in question. In such case, any income accrued in that respect, for example fees or taxes such as stamp duties, which reduce or offset that cost, must also be taken into account.










3.


Self-financing requirements for public sector bodies may be taken into account when determining the cost under Article 6 of the Directive. This applies insofar as only cost elements, together with a reasonable return on investment, that are related to the document processing necessary for re-use set out in Article 6 are taken into account.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6889 — Sogecap/Cardif/Clichy-la-Garenne Building Complex)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, life assurance, merger control, real property








C_2013109EN.01001001.xml










16.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6889 — Sogecap/Cardif/Clichy-la-Garenne Building Complex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 109/06






1.


On 9 April 2013, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Sogecap (France) and Cardif Assurance Vie (‘Cardif’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a building complex by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Sogecap, a subsidiary of Société générale, is active in the life assurance sector,










—


Cardif, a subsidiary of BNP Paribas, is active in the life assurance sector,










—


The building complex is a property consisting mainly of office space located in Clichy-la-Garenne, a commune of Hauts-de-Seine, France.














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 ten 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.6889 — Sogecap/Cardif/Clichy-la-Garenne Building Complex, 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’).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 April 2013 in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State (Case E-7/13)
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, access to the courts, tax








C_2013270EN.01000901.xml










19.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/9





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 April 2013 in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State
(Case E-7/13)
2013/C 270/07
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 April 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 April 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State, on the following questions:






1.


Is it compatible with EEA Law, and specifically with Article 6 of Council Directive 2003/98/EC, on the re-use of public sector information (cf. the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee, No 105/2005, amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement), to charge a fee on account of each mechanical enquiry for information from the register if no calculation of the ‘total income’ and the ‘cost’, in the sense of Article 6 of the Directive, is available at the time of the determination of the fee?










2.


Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ subject to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, no account is taken of:






(a)


income accruing to the State when documents are collected, in the form of fees paid by individuals and undertakings for the recording of contracts in the registers of legal deeds; and










(b)


income accruing to the State when documents are collected, in the form of taxes which are levied as stamp duties on recorded legal deeds at the time when individuals and undertakings apply to have them recorded in the registers of legal deeds?














3.


Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, account is taken of costs incurred by a public sector body in connection with the collection of documents which it is legally obliged to collect, irrespective of whether or not individuals or undertakings request to re-use them?










4.


Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to the article is determined, the legislature sets the amount of the fee in legislation without any particular amount being made subject to substantive examination?










5.


Would it be compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to the Directive is determined, appropriate account were taken of a general requirement in national legislation that public sector bodies be self-financing?










6.


If the answer to Question No 5 is in the affirmative, what does this involve in further detail and what cost elements in public sector operations may be taken into account in this context?
Case C-200/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, UN resolution, bank, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, rights of the defence








C_2013171EN.01002201.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/22





Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10: Bank Saderat Iran v Council of the European Union
(Case C-200/13 P)
2013/C 171/43
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10;










—


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










—


order Bank Saderat 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 5 February 2013 in Case T-494/10, Bank Saderat Iran 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 Saderat 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 one of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat was 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 Saderat were not substantiated, insofar as:






—


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










—


it failed to take due account of a reference in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008) to Bank Saderat in connection with Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities;










—


it was mistaken to consider that the Council needed to produce detailed information concerning Bank Saderat’s handling of letters of credit of two designated entities involved in Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6860 — Volvo/Dongfeng Motor Group Company/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2013109EN.01000901.xml










16.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6860 — Volvo/Dongfeng Motor Group Company/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 109/05






1.


On 9 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 AB Volvo (‘Volvo’, Sweden) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Dongfeng Commercial Vehicles Company Limited (‘DFCV’, PRC), previously solely controlled by Dongfeng Motor Group Company Limited (‘DFG’, PRC), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for AB Volvo: production of trucks, buses, construction equipment and marine and industrial engines,










—


for DFG: production of trucks, buses, passenger cars, automotive engines, automotive components and parts and vehicle manufacturing equipment,










—


for DFCV: production of trucks, buses, engines, axles and transmissions.














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.6860 — Volvo/Dongfeng Motor Group Company/JV, 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 F-34/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrative competition, competition (EU)








C_2013207EN.01005802.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/58





Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-34/13)
2013/C 207/97
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/231/12 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of that competition.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 31 January 2013 on the applicant’s claim of 25 September 2012;










—


Annul the decisions of 28 June 2012 and 16 July 2012 under which the applicant is notified of the refusal of admittance to the pre-selection stage (‘assessment centre’) of Competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 in which he participated;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-202/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch — Cross-border employment contract — Restriction — Disproportionate)
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, free movement of workers, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, official language, principle of proportionality, work contract








C_2013164EN.01000301.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV
(Case C-202/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch - Cross-border employment contract - Restriction - Disproportionate)
2013/C 164/04
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anton Las

Defendant: PSA Antwerp NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Art. 39 EC (now Art. 45 TFEU) — Belgian regional legislation imposing an obligation on an undertaking established in the Dutch language region to draft, on pain of nullity, all documents relating to an employment relationship with an international character in Dutch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which requires all employers whose established place of business is located in that entity’s territory to draft cross-border employment contracts exclusively in the official language of that federated entity, failing which the contracts are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.


(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
Case T-220/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, church, control of State aid, sports body, tax exemption








C_2013171EN.01003502.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/35





Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
(Case T-220/13)
2013/C 171/66
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-219/13 Ferracci v Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6913 — DP World/Goodman/DP World Asia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hong Kong, container, economic concentration, industrial property, international transport, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, real property








C_2013109EN.01001101.xml










16.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6913 — DP World/Goodman/DP World Asia)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 109/07






1.


On 9 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 Goodman Hong Kong Logistics Fund, ultimately controlled by the Goodman Group (‘Goodman’, Australia), and DP World Limited (‘DP World’, United Arab Emirates) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1) (b) of the Merger Regulation control of the undertaking DP World Asia Limited (‘DPWA’, Hong Kong, China) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Goodman: an integrated commercial and industrial property group that owns, develops and manages real estate including warehouses, large scale logistics facilities, business parks and offices,










—


for DP World: international maritime operator providing cargo handling and logistics services across the world,










—


for DPWA: container terminal services and logistics, including warehouse and office leasing, cargo handling, container freight station and distribution services in Hong Kong.














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.6913 — DP World/Goodman/DP World Asia, 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’).