do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, environmental protection, metallurgical industry








C_2013354EN.01000901.xml










4.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/9





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 354/04







Date of adoption of the decision


14.11.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.37017 (13/N)




Member State


Belgium




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot toekenning van steun aan ondernemingen ter compensatie van indirecte emissiekosten




Legal basis


Ontwerpbesluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot toekenning van steun aan ondernemingen ter compensatie van indirecte emissiekosten




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Other




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget








 


Overall budget: EUR 304 000 000










 


Annual budget: EUR 38 000 000








Intensity


85 %




Duration (period)


1.1.2014-31.12.2021




Economic sectors


Manufacture of basic iron and steel and of ferro-alloys




Name and address of the granting authority







Agentschap Ondernemen




Koning Albert II laan 35, bus 12




1030 Brussel




BELGIË








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Case C-117/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 88(1) and (2) EC — Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Poland, State aid, abuse of power, agricultural land, control of State aid, economic recession, powers of the institutions (EU), pre-accession aid, principle of proportionality, purchase








C_2014045EN.01000202.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-117/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 88(1) and (2) EC - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)
2014/C 45/03
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2010/10/EC of 20 November 2009 on the granting of a State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2010 L 4, p. 89) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.










3.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1265/2013 of 4 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in NAFO area 3LN by vessels flying the flag of Portugal
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU Member State, North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2013326EN.01003501.xml










6.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 326/35








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1265/2013
of 4 December 2013
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in NAFO area 3LN by vessels flying the flag of Portugal


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2013.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2013.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 4 December 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.




ANNEX






No


70/TQ40




Member State


Portugal




Stock


RED/N3LN.




Species


Redfish (Sebastes spp.)




Zone


NAFO 3LN




Closing date


20.11.2013
Case C-635/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 4 December 2013 — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, foodstuff, fruit vegetable, seed








C_2014039EN.01001302.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 4 December 2013 — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București
(Case C-635/13)
2014/C 39/21
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC ALKA CO SRL

Respondents: Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București

Questions referred







1.


Must raw shelled pumpkin (vegetable) seeds, intended to undergo heat and mechanical treatment in order to be used for human consumption (as a snack-type food) be classified under heading 1207 — subheading 1207999710, or under heading 1209 — subheading 1209919010 of the combined nomenclature of goods?










2.


Must raw shelled pumpkin (vegetables) seeds, intended to undergo heat and mechanical treatment in order to be used for human consumption (as a snack-type food) be classified, according to the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature, under heading 1207 — subheading 1207999710, or under heading 1209 — subheading 1209919010?










3.


Where there exists a contradiction between the customs classification under the Common Customs Tariff and the customs classification derived from the explanatory notes concerning the same product (raw shelled pumpkin — vegetable — seeds), which of those customs classifications applies in this case?










4.


In the light of Articles 109(a), 110 and 256(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1993, (1) are special administrative procedures necessary, such as submitting an application or presenting a EUR.1 certificate to a specific authority, in order to trigger the specific effect, namely, the concession by the customs authority of the preferential tariff scheme under Article 98 of the same regulation?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
Case C-640/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty, redemption, tax








C_2014078EN.01000203.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/2





Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-640/13)
2014/C 78/04
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Roels, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which was levied contrary to Union law, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;










—


order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.





The national legislation in issue

Section 107 of the Finance Act 2007 retroactively deprives taxpayers of the right to recover unlawfully charged tax.

The main argument

In the absence of any provision of EU law on the matter, it is for the national law of each Member State to determine the procedural conditions governing actions to vindicate the rights enjoyed by citizens under EU law. However, that procedural autonomy is subject to observance of the principles of effectiveness and equivalence and to other generally applicable principles of law, such as legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. Section 107 of the Finance Act 2007 fails to observe those principles and is thus incompatible with Article 4(3) TEU.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Apulia, Italy, State aid, control of State aid, export aid, regional development, transport company








C_2013354EN.01000601.xml










4.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/6





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 354/02







Date of adoption of the decision


16.10.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.35124 (12/N)




Member State


Italy




Region


Puglia


Article 107(3)(a)




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Interporto Regionale della Puglia




Legal basis


Decisione della Commissione C(2007) 5726 del 20 novembre 2007, Legge n. 183/1987 e Determinazione dirigenziale regionale n. 146/2009




Type of measure


Ad hoc aid


Interporto Regionale della Puglia SpA




Objective


Regional development, Promotion of export and internationalisation, Sectoral development




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 90 million




Intensity


60 %




Duration (period)


1.1.2013-1.1.2016




Economic sectors


Other transportation support activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Regione Puglia




Serv. Attuazione del Po-Viale Caduti di Tutte le Guerre 15




70126 Bari BA




ITALIA









Regione Puglia




AdG Po FESR 2007/2013-Viale Caduti di Tutte le Guerre 15




70126 Bari BA




ITALIA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Case C-118/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European cooperation, Latvia, State aid, abuse of power, agricultural land, control of State aid, economic recession, powers of the institutions (EU), pre-accession aid, principle of proportionality, purchase








C_2014045EN.01000301.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-118/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)
2014/C 45/04
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/991/EC of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 339, p. 34) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case C-638/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Roca against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-412/10 Roca v Commission
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, exchange of information, fine, plumbing equipment, price increase, restriction on competition, selling price, trade information








C_2014052EN.01002901.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/29





Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Roca against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-412/10 Roca v Commission
(Case C-638/13 P)
2014/C 52/52
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Roca (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the arguments put forward by Roca in the present case;










—


set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-412/10;










—


uphold Roca’s claims and reduce the fine imposed on it;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Roca in the present case, as well as those incurred in Case T-412/10 in so far as the same grounds are concerned.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.




First ground of appeal
, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment as regards the assessment of the lesser gravity of Roca’s infringement because of the smaller range of goods concerned by the infringement, and distortion of the findings of fact in the decision.










2.




Second ground of appeal
, alleging error of law in the application of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and breach of the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations in the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)







(1)  OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.
Case T-650/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Zoltán Lomnici v European Parliament
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, dissemination of EU information, rights of the defence








C_2014071EN.01002202.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/22






Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Zoltán Lomnici v European Parliament
(Case T-650/13)
(2014/C 71/41)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Zoltán Lomnici (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Lomnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 concerning Petition No 1298/2012





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea of failure to observe the obligation to state reasons and breach of the right of every Union citizen to a fair hearing. In that regard, he points out, inter alia, that his petition was filed without further action without any reasons being given, that he was not invited to the meeting and that he was not notified of the decision.
Case T-438/10: Order of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — Forgital Italy v Council (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products — Amendment of the description of certain suspensions — Regulatory act comprising implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: CCT duties, agricultural product, common customs tariff, fishery product, industrial production, suspension of customs duties








C_2014039EN.01001902.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/19





Order of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — Forgital Italy v Council
(Case T-438/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products - Amendment of the description of certain suspensions - Regulatory act comprising implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
2014/C 39/32
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Forgital Italy SpA (Velo d'Astico, Italy) (represented by: V. Turinetti di Priero and R. Mastroianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M.F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by: M. Florindo Gijón and K. Pellinghelli, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (OJ 2010 L 163, p. 4), in so far as it amends the description of certain goods in respect of which the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties were suspended.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Forgital Italy SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.