do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, glass fibre








C_2016030EN.01000301.xml










27.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/3





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2016/C 30/04)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 279, the Explanatory note to heading:








‘7019




Glass fibres (including glass wool) and articles thereof (for example, yarn, woven fabric)’






is replaced by the following:







‘7019




Glass fibres (including glass wool) and articles thereof (for example, yarn, woven fabric)





Glass fibres include two main categories:






(a)


textile glass fibres (filament glass fibres) produced from textile glass, i.e. glass products in which the filaments are largely parallel to each other; textile glass fibres are mostly used for reinforcement of other materials, e.g. composites, plastics;










(b)


glass wool fibres; glass wool fibres (random oriented fibres) produced by a rotary spinning process and are mostly used for insulation purposes.




There are two types of textile glass fibre:






(a)


(continuous) filament glass fibre consisting of a large number of continuous parallel filaments with diameters usually between 3 and 34 μm (microns); after forming, those continuous filaments are held together in a strand by size (also called “sizing”) designed to facilitate subsequent production steps (chopping, winding, twisting, weaving, etc.); the intermediate products are then used in the production of certain commercial glass fibre articles (chopped strands, rovings, yarns, etc.);










(b)


discontinuous filament glass fibre (staple glass fibre) consisting of filaments cut or broken in short lengths during the production process and pulled into a continuous strand of loosely assembled fibres; they are usually used in woven fabrics, for example, for the covering of walls in the construction and building sector.




Textile glass fibres can be further processed into the following articles of this heading:






—


mats and scrims with chemically bonded fibres, i.e. chopped strand mats, continuous strand mats and typical non-woven products like thin sheets (voiles), laid scrims, etc.,










—


fabrics with mechanically bonded fibres, i.e. woven fabrics, non-crimp fabrics, knitted fabrics, stitched fabrics, needled fabrics like woven rovings, open mesh fabrics, screens.’






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Decision of the General Court of 27 January 2016 on judicial vacations
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), holiday, operation of the Institutions








C_2016111EN.01000201.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/2





DECISION OF THE GENERAL COURT
of 27 January 2016
on judicial vacations
(2016/C 111/02)
THE GENERAL COURT
Having regard to Article 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the judicial year beginning on 1 September 2016, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 41(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:






—


Christmas 2016: from Monday 19 December 2016 to Sunday 8 January 2017 inclusive,










—


Easter 2017: from Monday 10 April 2017 to Sunday 23 April 2017 inclusive,










—


Summer 2017: from Friday 21 July 2017 to Sunday 3 September 2017 inclusive.





Article 2

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

Luxembourg, 27 January 2016.


Registrar

E. COULON



President

M. JAEGER
Special Report No 23/2015 — ‘Water quality in the Danube river basin: progress in implementing the Water Framework Directive but still some way to go’
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: national implementing measure, pollution of waterways, prevention of pollution, water analysis, water protection, watercourse








C_2016030EN.01000601.xml










27.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/6





Special Report No 23/2015
‘Water quality in the Danube river basin: progress in implementing the Water Framework Directive but still some way to go’
(2016/C 30/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 23/2015 ‘Water quality in the Danube river basin: progress in implementing the Water Framework Directive but still some way to go’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7880 — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/UniCarriers Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hoisting equipment, holding company, mechanical engineering, merger control








C_2016030EN.01000101.xml










27.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7880 — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/UniCarriers Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 30/01)
On 21 January 2016, 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 the 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 32016M7880. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-782/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — DF v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Secondment in the interest of the service — Expatriation allowance — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of undue payments)
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016090EN.01001502.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/15





Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — DF v Commission
(Case T-782/14) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Secondment in the interest of the service - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of undue payments))
(2016/C 090/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: DF (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Zwehl, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T. Bohr, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014, DF v Commission (F-91/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:228), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders DF to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Case C-46/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘LS Customs Services’
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, customs duties, customs inspection, customs territory (EU), customs valuation, free circulation, import (EU)








C_2016111EN.01001401.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘LS Customs Services’
(Case C-46/16)
(2016/C 111/17)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘LS Customs Services’

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the method laid down in that article is also applicable when the import of the goods and their release for free circulation in the customs territory of the Community took place as a consequence of the fact that during the transit procedure the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods concerned being goods liable to import duties, and the goods were not sold for export to the customs territory of the Community but for export outside the Community?










2.


Should the expression ‘sequentially’ used in Article 30(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, in the light of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read together with the principle that reasons must be stated for administrative measures, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to conclude that the applicable method is that set out in Article 31 of the regulation, the customs authorities are under an obligation to state in all administrative measures why in those specific circumstances the methods for determination of customs value of goods set out in Articles 29 and 30 cannot be used?










3.


Should it be deemed to be sufficient, to exclude the application of the method in Article 30(2)(a) of the Customs Code, that the customs authority declare that it does not have in its possession the appropriate information, or is the customs authority obliged to obtain information from the producer?










4.


Must the customs authority state reasons why the methods established in Article 30(2)(c) and (d) of the Customs Code are not to be used, if it determines the price of similar goods on the basis of Article 151(3) of Regulation No 2454/93? (2)











5.


Must the decision of the customs authority contain a full statement of reasons as to what information is available in the Community, within the meaning of Article 31 of the Customs Code, or can it produce that statement of reasons subsequently, in legal proceedings, submitting more complete evidence?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7889 — Engie/REC/TEN) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, merger control








C_2016030EN.01000201.xml










27.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7889 — Engie/REC/TEN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 30/03)
On 21 January 2016, 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 the 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 32016M7889. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7907 — Sphinx/CVC Capital Partners/RAC) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, maintenance, merger control, provision of services








C_2016030EN.01000901.xml










27.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7907 — Sphinx/CVC Capital Partners/RAC)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 30/10)






1.


On 20 January 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA of Luxembourg (‘CVC Group’) and Sphinx Investment Pte Ltd of Singapore (‘Sphinx’), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of RAC Groud (Holding) Limited of UK (‘RAC’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   CVC Group: provision of advice to and management of investment funds in various industry sectors,
—   Sphinx: management of a diversified global portfolio of investments in private equity, venture capital and infrastrucutre funds, as well as direct investments in private companies,
—   RAC: provision of breakdown and other motor-related services in the UK and Ireland.










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 the 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 this 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 M.7907 — Sphinx/CVC Capital Partners/RAC, 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 C-47/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: certificate of origin, customs territory (EU), customs union, import (EU)








C_2016111EN.01001501.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’
(Case C-47/16)
(2016/C 111/18)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘Veloserviss’

Questions referred

Should the importer’s obligation to act in good faith, laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, be defined as meaning that:






(a)


it includes an obligation on the importer to verify the circumstances in which the Form A certificate granted to the exporter was issued (certificates regarding the parts which constitute the goods, the role of the exporter in the manufacture of the goods, etc.)?










(b)


the importer acted in bad faith for no other reason than that the exporter acted in bad faith (for example, where the exporter failed to reveal the true origin of the costs, the value of the parts which constitute the goods, etc., to the customs authorities of the exporting country)?










(c)


the obligation to act in good faith has not been fulfilled for no other reason than that the exporter submitted incorrect information to the customs authorities of the exporting country, and that is so even where the customs authorities themselves committed errors in issuing the certificate?




May the importer’s obligation to act in good faith, laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be deemed to be sufficiently proved by virtue of the general description of the situation set out in the communication from OLAF and by virtue of OLAF’s findings, or should the national customs authorities nevertheless obtain additional evidence regarding the conduct of the exporter?


(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/108 of 27 January 2016 not approving 2-Butanone, peroxide as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 1 and 2 (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, decontamination, market approval, public hygiene








L_2016021EN.01008301.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 21/83








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/108
of 27 January 2016
         
not approving 2-Butanone, peroxide as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 1 and 2
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 89(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of existing active substances to be evaluated for their possible approval for use in biocidal products. That list includes 2-Butanone, peroxide.












(2)


In accordance with Article 12(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014, the European Chemicals Agency has informed the Commission that all participants have discontinued their participation in the review programme for 2-Butanone, peroxide for use in biocidal products for product-types 1 and 2.












(3)


2-Butanone, peroxide should therefore not be approved as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 1 and 2.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
2-Butanone, peroxide (EC No 215-661-2, CAS No 1338-23-4) is not approved as an active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 1 and 2.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 27 January 2016.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 of 4 August 2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 294, 10.10.2014, p. 1).
Case T-696/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — Montagut Viladot v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Recruitment — Competition to constitute a reserve from which to recruit grade AD 5 administrators — Decision of the selection board not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list — Diploma which does not satisfy the conditions in the notice of competition — Dismissal of the action at first instance)
Date: 2016-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), diploma, recruitment








C_2016098EN.01004202.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/42





Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — Montagut Viladot v Commission
(Case T-696/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Staff cases - Recruitment - Competition to constitute a reserve from which to recruit grade AD 5 administrators - Decision of the selection board not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list - Diploma which does not satisfy the conditions in the notice of competition - Dismissal of the action at first instance))
(2016/C 098/55)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Bernat Montagut Viladot (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: F.A. Rodríguez-Gigirey Pérez and J.A. Simón Sánchez, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 15 July 2014 in Montagut Viladot v Commission (F-160/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:190), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Bernat Montagut Viladot to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.