do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-45/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Andreas Kainz v Pantherwerke AG (Request for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Liability for a defective product — Product manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State — Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ — Place of the event giving rise to the damage)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: defective product, jurisdiction, producer's liability








C_2014085EN.01001001.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/10





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Andreas Kainz v Pantherwerke AG
(Case C-45/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Liability for a defective product - Product manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State - Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ - Place of the event giving rise to the damage)
2014/C 85/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Andreas Kainz

Defendant: Pantherwerke AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Liability for defective products — Goods manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Situation in which the place where the damage occurred (‘Erfolgsort’) is in the State where the goods were manufactured — Interpretation of the concept of the ‘place of the event giving rise to [the damage]’ (‘Handlungsort’).

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a manufacturer faces a claim of liability for a defective product, the place of the event giving rise to the damage is the place where the product in question was manufactured.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case C-16/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, production cost, purchase price








C_2014102EN.01001501.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-16/14)
2014/C 102/20
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Property Development Company NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is interest on borrowed capital which, according to Article 35(4) of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978, may be included in the production costs to the extent that it relates to the period of production, part of the taxable amount of an application within the meaning of Article 5(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977, that is to say, part of the ‘cost price’ within the meaning of Article 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive and/or the incidental expenses within the meaning of Article 11A(2) of the Sixth Directive?


(1)  Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).
Case C-23/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dominant position, market supervision, reduced price








C_2014078EN.01000502.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
(Case C-23/14)
2014/C 78/10
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Intervener: Bring Citymail Denmark A/S

Questions referred







1.


What guidelines should be used to decide whether the application by a dominant undertaking of a rebate scheme with a standardised volume threshold having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference constitutes an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
In its answer the Court is requested to clarify what relevance it has to the assessment whether the rebate scheme’s thresholds are set in such a way that the rebate scheme applies to the majority of customers on the market.
In its answer the Court is further requested to clarify what relevance, if any, the dominant undertaking’s prices and costs have to the evaluation pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty of such a rebate scheme (relevance of a ‘competitor as efficient’ test).
At the same time the Court is requested to clarify what relevance the characteristics of the market have in this connection, including whether the characteristics of the market can justify the foreclosure effect being demonstrated by examinations and analyses other than a ‘competitor as efficient’ test (see, in that regard, paragraph 24 of the Commission’s communication on the application of Article 82).










2.


How probable and serious must the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference be for Article 82 of the EC Treaty to apply?










3.


Having regard to the answers given to Questions 1 and 2, what specific circumstances must the national court take into account in assessing whether a rebate scheme, in circumstances such as those described in the order for reference (characteristics of the market and the rebate scheme), has or is capable of having such a foreclosure effect in the specific case that it constitutes an abuse covered by Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
In this connection, is it a requirement that the foreclosure effect is appreciable?
Corrigendum to Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations ( OJ C 355, 5.12.2013 )
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, public service, transport regulations








C_2014012EN.01000601.xml










16.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/6





Corrigendum to Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 355 of 5 December 2013
)
2014/C 12/06
On page 7, last line:
for:

‘Internet: http://www.vortalGOV.pt’,

read:

‘Website: www.saphety.com’.
Case C-67/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Articles 3, 7 and 8 — Incomplete transposition)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community certification, Spain, building, energy saving, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure








C_2014085EN.01000202.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/2





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-67/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Articles 3, 7 and 8 - Incomplete transposition)
2014/C 85/03
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and I. Galindo Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.04.2012.
European Parliament decision of 16 January 2014 on the Council recommendation for appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (N7-0002/2014 — C7-0010/2014 — 2014/0801(NLE))
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








C_2016482EN.01024401.xml










23.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/244





P7_TA(2014)0033
Appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (Sabine Lautenschläger)
European Parliament decision of 16 January 2014 on the Council recommendation for appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (N7-0002/2014 — C7-0010/2014 — 2014/0801(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2016/C 482/45)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council's recommendation of 7 January 2014 (N7-0002/2014) (1),










—


having regard to Article 283(2), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the European Council consulted Parliament (C7-0010/2014),










—


having regard to Rule 109 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0023/2014),










A.


whereas, by letter of 8 January 2014, received on 9 January 2014, the European Council consulted Parliament on the appointment of Sabine Lautenschläger as a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) for a term of office of eight years;










B.


whereas Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of Ms Lautenschläger, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the light of the need for full independence of the ECB in the area of monetary policy pursuant to Article 130 TFEU, whereas in carrying out this evaluation, the committee received a curriculum vitae from Ms Lautenschläger as well as her replies to the written questionnaire that had been sent to her;










C.


whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with Ms Lautenschläger on 13 January 2014, at which she made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the committee;












1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council recommendation to appoint Sabine Lautenschläger as Member of the Executive Board of the ECB;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Council, the Council and the governments of the Member States.






(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.
Case F-107/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014  — Guinet v EIB (Civil Service — Staff of the EIB — Pension scheme — Transfer of pension rights — Compensation for the disadvantages resulting from the delay in the transfer of the pension rights — Condition of effective transfer of pension rights acquired in a scheme other than that of the EIB — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, established right, indemnification, transfer of pension rights








C_2014223EN.01006601.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/66





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Guinet v EIB
(Case F-107/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Staff of the EIB - Pension scheme - Transfer of pension rights - Compensation for the disadvantages resulting from the delay in the transfer of the pension rights - Condition of effective transfer of pension rights acquired in a scheme other than that of the EIB - Principle of equal treatment))
2014/C 223/67
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philippe Guinet (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul the EIB’s implied decision to reject the applicant’s request to recalculate his years of pensionable service and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Guinet to bear his own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank;










3.


Orders the European Investment Bank to bear a quarter of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 366, 14.11.2012, p. 41.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7114 — JLL/DSM/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2014012EN.01000501.xml










16.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7114 — JLL/DSM/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 12/05






1.


On 8 January 2014, 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 JLL Patheon Co-Investment Fund, L.P. (‘JLL Holdco’), an affiliate of JLL Partners (‘JLL’) and Koninkijke DSM NV (‘DSM’) will create a joint venture (‘JV’) within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation through a multi-step transaction and the contribution of certain businesses, assets and cash.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for JLL: private equity firm holding investments in various industries including pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing outsourcing,










—


for DSM: a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials,










—


for JV: pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing outsourcing.














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.7114 — JLL/DSM/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 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-21/14 P: Appeal brought on 16 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 November 2013 in Case T-512/09: Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Armenia, Brazil, China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, case-law (EU), import (EU), institutional balance (EU)








C_2014061EN.01000701.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/7





Appeal brought on 16 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 November 2013 in Case T-512/09: Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council of the European Union
(Case C-21/14 P)
2014/C 61/11
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 5 November 2013, notified to the Commission on 6 November 2013, in Case T-512/09 Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council;










—


reject the first plea of the Application at first instance as unfounded in law;










—


refer the case for the remaining pleas to the General Court for reconsideration;










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:






 


First, the General Court has ruled ultra petita.










 


Second, the General Court has misinterpreted Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), in the version applicable when the contested Regulation was adopted, and the intention of the Community legislator, in the sense of the Nakajima case-law (2), when adopting that provision.










 


Third, the General Court has violated the general principle of Community law of institutional balance.






(1)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

(2)  Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraphs 28 to 32; restated in Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, paragraph 49; see also Case C-76/00 P Petrotub and Republica v Council [2003] ECR I-79, paragraphs 53 to 56.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7108 — Axpo Group/EDP Group/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, wind energy








C_2014012EN.01000301.xml










16.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 12/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7108 — Axpo Group/EDP Group/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 12/03






1.


On 8 January 2014 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 Axpo CKW France, belonging to Axpo Holding AG (Switzerland), and EDPR France, belonging to the EDP Renovaveis SA (Portugal), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over 9 wind power companies located in France, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Axpo CKW France: an undertaking active in the energy sector, offering a wide range of services including supply of electricity to end-customer, energy consulting, installations, IT and telematics, security consulting assessment, fibre optic and telecommunication,










—


for EDPR France: operation of on-shore wind farms in France,










—


for the wind power companies: each operates an on-shore wind farm in France.














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.7108 — Axpo Group/EDP Group/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 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).