do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 5 June 2015 in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund (Case E-14/15)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, collective agreement, competition law, competition policy, ports policy, right of establishment, trade union








C_2016073EN.01001001.xml










25.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 5 June 2015 in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund
(Case E-14/15)
(2016/C 73/06)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 5 June 2015 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund on the following questions:
A   On competition law:









A.1


Does the exemption from the competition rules of the EEA Agreement that applies to collective agreements, as this exemption is described, inter alia, in the advisory opinion of the EFTA Court in Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen i Norge and NKF [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114, cover the use of a boycott against a port user in order to produce acceptance of a collective agreement, when such acceptance entails that the port user must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate administration office as described in paragraphs 7 and 10 to 14 above, rather than to use its own employees for the same work?












A.2


If not, should such a system be assessed under Article 53 or Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?












A.3


In that case, must the existence of an identical or corresponding system in other ports be taken into account in the assessment of whether there is a noticeable effect on cross-border trade within the EEA?




B   On the freedom of establishment:









B.1


Is it a restriction on the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 31 of the EEA Agreement for a trade union to use a boycott in order to produce acceptance of a collective agreement by a company whose parent company is based in another EEA State, when the collective agreement entails that the company must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate administration office having the characteristics described in paragraphs 10 to 14 above, rather than use its own employees for this work?












B.2


Would it be of significance for the assessment of whether a restriction exists, if the company’s need for unloading and loading services proved to be very limited and/or sporadic?












B.3


If a restriction exists: Is it of significance for the assessment of whether the restriction is lawful or not, that the company, in relation to its own dockworkers, applies another collective agreement negotiated between the social partners in the State where the port is located, when that collective agreement concerns matters other than unloading and loading work?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015186EN.01000201.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

4 June 2015
(2015/C 186/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1317




JPY


Japanese yen


140,47




DKK


Danish krone


7,4599




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73540




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3396




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0551




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7370




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,467




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,30




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1692




RON


Romanian leu


4,4285




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0377




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4618




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4089




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7733




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5834




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5221




KRW


South Korean won


1 256,92




ZAR


South African rand


13,9625




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0177




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5605




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 047,75




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1867




PHP


Philippine peso


50,790




RUB


Russian rouble


62,1695




THB


Thai baht


38,171




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5498




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5812




INR


Indian rupee


72,4362






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2015186EN.01000301.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/3





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2015/C 186/03)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: Austria


Subject of commemoration
: 200 years of Oesterreichische Nationalbank


Description of the design
: The design depicts two gods of Roman mythology featured in the carved relief above the entrance to the main building of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB): to the left, Mercury, the messenger of the gods and the god of merchants and commerce; to the right, Fortuna, the goddess of fate and prosperity, who is portrayed with a horn of plenty. The background picture, running from the left to the right edges of the core, shows the OeNB’s main premises. An ornamental band hugging the bottom of the coin centre evokes the red-white-red pattern of the Austrian national flag, with hatched vertical lines symbolizing the colour red, as laid down in the rules of heraldic design. The years ‘1816’ and ‘2016’ to the left of Mercury refer to the OeNB’s founding year and its bicentennial. The inscriptions running along the edges of the gold-coloured centre read ‘Republik Österreich’ (Republic of Austria) and ‘200 Jahre Oesterreichische Nationalbank’ (200 years Oesterreichische Nationalbank).
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 16 million


Date of issue
: 2016


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-267/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2015 — Gemeente Woerden; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building, economic activity, property development, property leasing, tax, tax relief








C_2015262EN.01001001.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2015 — Gemeente Woerden; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-267/15)
(2015/C 262/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Gemeente Woerden

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

In a case such as the present, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price which does not cover all of the costs, while the purchaser of the building has given a certain part thereof to a third party for the latter’s use free of charge, is that taxable person entitled to deduct all of the VAT charged in respect of the construction of the building, or only a part thereof, in proportion to the parts of the building which the purchaser uses for economic activities (in the present case, leasing in return for payment)?
Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: civil procedure, civil proceedings, form, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU








L_2015141EN.01011801.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 141/118







Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 199 of 31 July 2007
)


On page 12, point 4.7:
for:













‘4.7.


Choice of court/tribunal agreed by the parties






’




,read:













‘4.7.


Choice of court/tribunal agreed by the parties






☐’




.
Case T-300/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — OASE/OHIM — COMPO France (AlGo)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, decontamination, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2015262EN.01003402.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/34





Action brought on 5 June 2015 — OASE/OHIM — COMPO France (AlGo)
(Case T-300/15)
(2015/C 262/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: OASE GmbH (Hörstel, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: COMPO France SAS (Roche-Lez-Beaupré, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: OASE GmbH

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘AlGo’ — Registration No 10 096 337

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1409/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7561 — PRE/AXIS) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2015186EN.01000101.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7561 — PRE/AXIS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 186/01)
On 22 May 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7561. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Call for applications 2015 — Third programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, health care, invitation to tender








C_2015186EN.01000401.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/4





Call for applications 2015
Third programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 186/04)
A call for applications ‘Health — 2015’ is launched today within the framework of the third programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (1).
This call for applications consists of:






—


a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of project grants.




Deadline for online submissions of the proposals is 15 September 2015.
All the information, including the Commission Decision of 2 June 2015 on the adoption of the work programme for 2015 for implementation of the third programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020), and on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme, are available on the website of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) at the following address:
http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the establishment of a third Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1350/2007/EC (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7571 — Dawn Meats/Terrena/Elivia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, meat processing industry, merger control








C_2015186EN.01000801.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7571 — Dawn Meats/Terrena/Elivia)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 186/07)






1.


On 28 May 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings QDB Holdings Group/Dawn Meats (‘Dawn Meats’, Ireland) and Terrena (France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control the undertaking Elivia (France), by way of purchase of shares. Elivia is currently wholly-owned by Terrena.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Dawn meats: slaughtering of livestock, deboning and further processing of meat, including rendering of abattoir by-products, with main operations in the beef and lamb sectors,
—   for Terrena: various activities throughout the value chains of agricultural products, including processing and marketing of meat products,
—   for Elivia: slaughtering of cattle, production and sale of fresh and processed beef products, including abattoir by-products, primarily in France.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (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 the reference number M.7571 — Dawn Meats/Terrena/Elivia, 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 ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-294/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Ruhrort v Commission
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, competition policy, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2015302EN.01005901.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/59





Action brought on 5 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Ruhrort v Commission
(Case T-294/15)
(2015/C 302/74)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
The applicant submits that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge is not aid, since State resources were neither granted nor renounced. The reduction of the EEG-surcharge is also not made selectively. In addition, it does not distort competition and also does not affect trade in the internal market.










2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU
Should — contrary to what the applicant submits — aid exist, the applicant takes the view that the defendant was in any event not entitled to require recovery pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU. This is because the reduction of the EEG-surcharge does not constitute new aid, since the previous rules in respect of it, which were identical in content in fundamental aspects, had already been approved by the defendant in 2002.










3.


Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU
The applicant also submits that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In this respect, the defendant should not have assessed the facts examined by it on the basis of its Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, which were published only on 28 June 2014. Instead, it should have applied the guidelines published in 2008. Taking the 2008 standard as a basis, the defendant would not have been entitled to reach a conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.










4.


Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty
Lastly, the applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision in a procedure concerning new aid, the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU. As the defendant had approved the rules preceding the EEG 2012, it should have taken a decision in a procedure concerning existing aid and not in a procedure concerning new aid.
Case T-310/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, copper, legal basis, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, principle of proportionality








C_2015294EN.01007401.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/74






Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
(Case T-310/15)
(2015/C 294/89)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution, to the extent that it applies to copper compounds;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs generated by this procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution has been adopted on an illegal basis, as Regulation No 1107/2009, in particular its Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, infringe EU law.






—


The applicant puts forward that scientific evidence indicates that Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity (‘PBT’) criteria, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper.










—


Moreover, according to the applicant, the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances.










—


Finally, so the applicant claims, as far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging, subsidiarity, that by including copper compounds within the scope of Implementing Regulation 2015/408, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality.