do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-635/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Article 16(2)(a) and (b) — Company resulting from a cross-border merger — Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States — Participation rights — Failure to provide identical rights)
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, company with share capital, free movement of workers, infringement of EU law, merger








C_2013225EN.01001702.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/17





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-635/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Article 16(2)(a) and (b) - Company resulting from a cross-border merger - Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States - Participation rights - Failure to provide identical rights)
2013/C 225/28
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and C. Wissels, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) — Employee participation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies.










2.


Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
Case C-468/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl (Request for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 — Directive 200817/EC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Article 5(1)(c) — Scope — Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, agricultural holding, chamber of commerce and industry, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, lawyer, registration of a company








C_2013225EN.01005201.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/52





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl
(Case C-468/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 - Directive 200817/EC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Article 5(1)(c) - Scope - Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)
2013/C 225/92
Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Tribunale di Cosenza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza

Defendant: Ciesse srl, in liquidation

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza — Interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11) — Imposition of an annual fee for entry in the register of companies kept by the local chambers of commerce — Amount of the annual duty determined in a more favourable manner for individual undertakings, agricultural partnerships (‘societá semplici’) and law firms than for other economic undertakings

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as not precluding the charging of an annual duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid to chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture by all undertakings registered or noted in the register kept by those chambers and calculated, in general, on the basis of their turnover, but fixed on a flat-rate basis for certain categories of undertakings, and, in particular, for undertakings individually owned or managed by natural persons.


(1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 589/2013 of 20 Jume 2013 withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, import (EU), import licence, sugar product, tariff quota








L_2013169EN.01006601.xml










21.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 169/66








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 589/2013
of 20 Jume 2013
         
withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4318 were suspended as from 27 September 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 879/2012 of 26 September 2012 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2012 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.












(2)


Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 879/2012 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4318 as from 27 September 2012 is withdrawn.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 June 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.

(3)  
            OJ L 259, 27.9.2012, p. 3.
Case C-186/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez (Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries — Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State — No restriction)
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, interpretation of the law, legal domicile, liability, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary








C_2013225EN.01003201.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/32





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez
(Case C-186/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Restrictions - Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries - Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State - No restriction)
2013/C 225/53
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Impacto Azul Lda

Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions on freedom of establishment — National rules excluding the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiary companies for those parent companies having their seat in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the principle of the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries to parent companies having their seat in the territory of another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
Case C-219/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(1) and (2) — Concept of ‘economic activities’ — Deduction of input tax — Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling — Supply to the network — Remuneration — Electricity production lower than consumption)
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, VAT, economic activity, electricity supply, housing, interpretation of the law, own consumption, solar energy, tax relief








C_2013225EN.01003302.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/33





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz
(Case C-219/12) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(1) and (2) - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Deduction of input tax - Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling - Supply to the network - Remuneration - Electricity production lower than consumption)
2013/C 225/56
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

In the presence of: Thomas Fuchs

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4 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) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Photovoltaic installation for electricity production near a private dwelling without a power storage unit — Sale of the energy produced to a company which resupplies that dwelling with the energy which it requires — Energy production lower than consumption in the long term

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a photovoltaic installation on or adjacent to a house which is used as a dwelling, which is designed such that the electricity produced is (i) always less than the electricity privately consumed by its operator and (ii) supplied to the network in exchange for income on a continuing basis, falls within the concept of ‘economic activities’ as defined in that Article.


(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Case C-339/13: Action brought on 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, infringement of EU law, laying poultry, national implementing measure, protection of animals








C_2013252EN.01002103.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/21





Action brought on 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-339/13)
2013/C 252/34
Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC; (1)











—


Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Article 5 of Directive 1999/74/EC expired on 10 January 2012.


(1)  Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6933 — Vitol/Phillips 66 Power Operations) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, merger control








C_2013174EN.01001301.xml










20.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6933 — Vitol/Phillips 66 Power Operations)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 174/09






1.


On 14 June 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Vitol Holding BV (‘Vitol’, the Netherlands), through one of its indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries, Teak Power Operations Limited (‘Teak’, UK), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Phillips 66 Power Operations Limited (‘PPOL’, UK) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Vitol: worldwide company active in trading of various commodities, including crude oil, oil products, LNG, natural gas, coal, electricity and carbon emissions,










—


for PPOL: active in UK in the generation and wholesale supply of electricity, in the retail supply of electricity and industrial process steam to local industrial customers.














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.6933 — Vitol/Phillips 66 Power Operations, 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’).
Notice of open competition
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrative competition, administrator, translation








C_2013174EN.01000901.xml










20.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/9





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2013/C 174/05
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AD/255/13 — Croatian-Language (HR) Translators (AD 5)
The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 174 A of 20 June 2013.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case C-471/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, free service, legal aid








C_2013225EN.01005503.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/55





Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission
(Case C-471/12 P)
2013/C 225/104
Language of the case: Slovene

Parties


Appellant: Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. (represented by D. Komlensky and P. Komljenovic, odvetnika)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 20 June 2013, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby:







1.


Dismisses the application for legal aid.










2.


Dismisses the appeal.










3.


Orders Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. to bear its own costs.
Case C-269/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc. (Appeal — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission — Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cessation of trading, competition, complaint to the Commission, performance drugs, restriction on competition








C_2013225EN.01003501.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/35





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc.
(Case C-269/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Anti-doping legislation - Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission - Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ - That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)
2013/C 225/59
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard and C. Aguet, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), World Anti-doping Agency (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Cooper, solicitor, N. Chesaites, barrister), ATP Tour, Inc.

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471, rejecting for lack of Community interest a complaint concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-doping Agency, the ATP Tour Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Errors of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — Interest in bringing proceedings ceased to exist during the proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
Case C-338/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Marjan Noorzia
Date: 2013-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, family migration, foreign national, interpretation of the law, marital status








C_2013233EN.01000402.xml










10.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Marjan Noorzia
(Case C-338/13)
2013/C 233/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marjan Noorzia

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Question referred

Is Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which spouses and registered partners must already have reached the age of 21 years at the time at which the application is submitted in order to be considered to be entitled to join other family members?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.