sexta-feira, 6 de abril de 2007

Directiva. Informações respeitantes aos emitentes cujos valores mobiliários estão admitidos à negociação num mercado regulamentado

Directiva 2007/14/CE da Comissão, de 8 de Março de 2007, que estabelece as normas de execução de determinadas disposições da Directiva 2004/109/CE relativa à harmonização dos requisitos de transparência no que se refere às informações respeitantes aos emitentes cujos valores mobiliários estão admitidos à negociação num mercado regulamentado.
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:069:0027:0036:PT:PDF>

Programa de Estabilidade actualizado de Portugal

(2007/C 71/02)

Parecer do Conselho, de 27 de Fevereiro de 2007, sobre o Programa de Estabilidade actualizado de Portugal para 2006-2010
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:071:0005:0008:PT:PDF>

Ac. TJCE de 29 de Março de 2007. Imposto sobre as sociedades

Palavras-Chave:
«Liberdade de estabelecimento – Imposto sobre as sociedades – Compensação imediata das perdas sofridas pelas sociedades‑mãe – Perdas resultantes da amortização efectuada com base no valor das participações detidas em filiais estabelecidas noutros Estados‑Membros»
Resumo:
Em circunstâncias como as do processo principal, nas quais uma sociedade‑mãe detém, numa filial não residente, uma participação que lhe permite exercer uma influência real sobre as decisões dessa filial estrangeira e determinar as respectivas actividades, os artigos 52.° do Tratado CE (que passou, após alteração, a artigo 43.° CE) e 58.° do Tratado CE (que passou a artigo 48.° CE), opõem‑se a uma regulamentação de um Estado‑Membro que restringe, para uma sociedade‑mãe residente nesse Estado, as possibilidades de dedução fiscal das perdas sofridas pela referida sociedade com as amortizações efectuadas com base no valor das suas participações em filiais estabelecidas noutros Estados‑Membros.

Para aceder ao Acórdão consultar:
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=pt&newform=newform&Submit=Pesquisar&alljur=alljur&jurcdj=jurcdj&jurtpi=jurtpi&jurtfp=jurtfp&alldocrec=alldocrec&docj=docj&docor=docor&docop=docop&docav=docav&docsom=docsom&docinf=docinf&alldocnorec=alldocnorec&docnoj=docnoj&docnoor=docnoor&typeord=ALLTYP&numaff=&ddatefs=29&mdatefs=03&ydatefs=2007&ddatefe=20&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100

TJCE. Copyright. TV´s dos hoteis

Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-306/05 (7 December 2006)

Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) vs Rafael Hoteles SA

THE DISTRIBUTION OF A SIGNAL BY MEANS OF TELEVISION SETS BY A HOTEL TO ITS CUSTOMERS IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. The private nature of hotel rooms is irrelevant.

Programa de clemência. Redução ou isenção das coimas daqueles que participam nos cartéis. Perguntas Frequentes

MEMO/06/470
Brussels, 7th December 2006

Competition: Commission Leniency Notice – frequently asked questions
(see also IP/06/1705)

How many applications for immunity and for reduction of fines has the Commission received under the 2002 Leniency Notice?
In the period from 14 February 2002 until the end of 2005, the Commission received 167 applications under the 2002 Leniency Notice (see IP/02/247 and MEMO/02/23). Of these applications, 87 were requests for immunity and 80 were requests for reduction in fines.
Where several immunity applications have been received for the same alleged infringement, the first application is counted as an immunity application and the subsequent ones as applications for a reduction of fines unless the first application for immunity is rejected. In the latter situation the second application will be considered as an immunity application. In practice immunity applications are normally made for immunity from fines, or in the alternative, reduction of fines. Where immunity is no longer available, such applications are treated – and for statistics recorded – as applications for a reduction of fines.

What is the number of applications granted, withdrawn and not followed?
In the period from 14 February 2002 until the end of 2005, the Commission has granted 51 decisions for conditional immunity. Over the same period, the Commission rejected or decided not to deal any further with 23 applications and had under scrutiny 13 more recent applications.

From which sectors have leniency applications been made under the 2002 Leniency Notice?
The Commission has received leniency applications in a wide variety of sectors including agriculture, steel, construction, chemicals, transport, services, paper and forestry industry as well as graphite products and electrical appliances.

In how many cases has the Commission received a leniency application and subsequently transferred the case to a national competition authority?
In the period from 14 February 2002 to the end of 2005, 6 cases have been transferred to national competition authorities.

In how many cases has a national competition authority transferred a case to the Commission after having received a leniency application?
There are no cases where an application was only made to a national competition authority that then transferred this case to the Commission.

In how many cases has the Commission received a leniency application under the 2002 Leniency Notice where the applicant has made a leniency application also to the competition authorities of the United States?
In the period from 14 February 2002 to the end of 2005, this occurred, to the Commission knowledge, in relation to 10 different cartel investigations.

How many leniency applications resulted in a final decision unveiling and punishing a cartel?
Since the entry into force of the current Leniency Notice on 14 February 2002 until the present, the Commission has taken formal decisions in 5 cartel cases in which companies co-operated with the investigations under the 2002 Leniency Notice.
All 5 cases together represent a total amount of fines of € 1,131 million.

Have conditional immunity decisions been withdrawn?
In the period from 14 February 2002 until the end of 2005, there was 1 such case. This case concerns cartel investigation on the raw tobacco sector where conditional immunity was granted at the beginning of the procedure under the terms of the Leniency Notice. The prohibition decision taken on 20 October 2005 (see also press release IP/05/1315) withholds final immunity due to a serious breach by the immunity applicant of its co-operation obligation. Having received conditional immunity, the applicant revealed to its main competitors that it had applied for leniency with the Commission. This occurred before the Commission could carry out surprise inspections, so that when these took place, most companies concerned were already aware of the existence of the Commission investigation.

What has been the experience with the current immunity threshold in the 2002 Leniency Notice?
Until the end of 2005 the Commission had received 87 requests for immunity and granted a conditional immunity only on 51 applications. These figures reflect the fact that numerous immunity applications have not given the necessary insider information and evidence on the alleged cartel to meet the immunity threshold. In addition, there have been cases where immunity has been granted after an applicant has supplemented its application, but the process has taken a lot of time. The reason behind this is that the 2002 Leniency Notice does not give enough guidance to the applicants as to what to submit in order to qualify for the immunity threshold. This has been perceived as a major problem by the business and legal community and has often resulted into a lot of time being spent on supplementing the applications.

Is the Commission Leniency Notice in line with other leniency programmes?
The amendments to the Commission Leniency Notice are fully consistent with the ECN Model Leniency Programme. For further information on the ECN Model Leniency Programme, see MEMO/06/356.

The main features of the Commission Leniency Notice are also common to other major leniency programmes across the world (for instance the possibility to get immunity, reduction of fines, the possibility to grant a marker etc.).

Direitos dos passageiros dos transportes aéreos

A Comissão concede seis meses às companhias aéreas e aos Estados-Membros para aplicarem eficazmente o regulamento relativo aos direitos dos passageiros

A Comissão Europeia apresentou hoje um relatório que analisa os resultados e a aplicação do regulamento relativo aos direitos dos passageiros dos transportes aéreos[1]. Embora se tenham registado alguns progressos nos dois anos decorridos desde a sua entrada em vigor, há ainda que pôr em prática importantes medidas para garantir que as companhias aéreas aplicam as regras com mais coerência e que os Estados-Membros velam mais adequadamente por essa aplicação. Esta é a principal conclusão do estudo[2] que a Comissão encomendou para complementar a sua Comunicação sobre os resultados das regras comuns que protegem os direitos dos passageiros dos transportes aéreos.

[1] Regulamento (CE) n.º 261/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 11 de Fevereiro de 2004, que estabelece regras comuns para a indemnização e a assistência aos passageiros dos transportes aéreos em caso de recusa de embarque e de cancelamento ou atraso considerável dos voos e que revoga o Regulamento (CEE) n.º 295/91.
[2] http://ted.europa.eu/udl?REQUEST=Seek-Deliver&LANGUAGE=en&DOCID=038536-2006
e http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/tenders/doc/2006/s36_038536_specifications_en.pdf


A Comissão preparou também material actualizado para orientar de uma forma mais adequada os passageiros no que se refere aos seus direitos. Um novo cartaz estará disponével antes do Verão em todos os aeroportos.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/information_pt.htm
Mais informações em : Memo/06/293

Auxílio estatal: a Comissão autoriza o auxílio proposto de 38 milhões de euros a uma fábrica de produção de papel de Setúbal

A Comissão Europeia autorizou, em conformidade com as regras do Tratado CE em matéria de auxílios estatais, benefícios fiscais no valor de 38 milhões de euros que o Governo português tenciona conceder à empresa "About the Future", uma filial do grupo Portucel Soporcel, para a criação de uma nova fábrica de papel fino não revestido em Setúbal. A investigação da Comissão permitiu concluir pela compatibilidade do auxílio com o mercado comum, uma vez que preenche os requisitos das Orientações dos auxílios estatais com finalidade regional e as regras aplicáveis aos auxílios regionais para grandes projectos de investimento (ver IP/02/242).
IP/07/472
Bruxelas, 4 de Abril de 2007