ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/15

Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by Goldman Management AD against the judgment delivered on 16 November 2009 in Case T-354/09

(Case C-507/09 P)

()

2010/C 221/24

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Goldman Management AD (represented by: I. Lilkova, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Bulgaria

By Order of 6 May 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.
3.

Are the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 to be interpreted as meaning that, where there are no national legal provisions which provide expressly, in the event of subsequent entry in the accounts, for an increase in the customs duty or another national penalty equal to the amount that would have been charged as interest on arrears in respect of the period between the time at which the customs debt was incurred and the time at which the subsequent entry in the accounts was made, Community law does not permit national courts to effect such an increase or impose such a penalty?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
4.

Do Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC and the principles of equality [and] non-discrimination preclude rules governing workers in the schools sector (see in particular Article 4(1) of Law No 124/99 and Article 1(1)(a) of Ministerial Decree No 430/00), under which it is permissible not to specify the justification for the first fixed-term contract, which is a general requirement under national law for every other fixed-term employment relationship, and to renew contracts irrespective of the existence of fixed and permanent requirements, and which do not stipulate a total maximum duration for fixed-term contracts or employment relationships, the number of times such contracts or relationships can be renewed, or, normally do not provide that there should be periods between renewals or, in the case of supply teaching for the whole school year, that that period should correspond to the summer holidays, when there is no, or very little, teaching activity?
1.

Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC, and the articles of and annexes to Commission Decision 2003/803/EC (2) of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets preclude national legislation regulating passports for cats and ferrets from, on the one hand, referring to the model and the additional requirements laid down in the aforementioned Commission Decision of 26 November 2003, yet, on the other hand, also prescribing that every passport must bear a unique number consisting of 13 characters, namely, ‘BE’, being the ISO code for Belgium, followed by the identification number of the distributor consisting of two digits, and a serial number consisting of nine digits?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/16

Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2009 in Case T-110/09: Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-28/10 P)

2010/C 80/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant(s): Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu (represented by: A. Riza QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Council Decision 2004/511/EC (1) on the ground that it is based on an unlawful failure to act to enable the Turkish Cypriot people to take part in European elections in violation of Article 189 of the EC Treaty read together with Articles 5 and 6 if the Treaty on European Union.

— Declare that the six MEPs notified by the RoC after 6 June 2009 returned under the present electoral arrangements do not represent the Turkish Cypriot as required by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance was wrong when it ruled that his action was lodged out of time. In support of this argument he submits that the case law relied upon by the CFI did not involve a failure to provide for the fundamental right of participating in elections of an entire people and did not concern a decision whose legal premise was a failure to act and make provisions for elections rather than to purport to postpone the right to hold such elections.

The appellant also submits that it was not the case that he did not invoke the existence of an excusable error or force majeure when lodging his application.

(1) 2004/511/EC:Council Decision of 10 June 2004 concerning the representation of the people of Cyprus in the European Parliament in case of a settlement of the Cyprus problem

OJ L 211, p. 22
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/21

Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-74/10 P)

2010/C 113/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07, EREF v Commission of the European Communities, null and void;

— refer the case back for judgment to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court;

— order the European Commission to pay the procedural costs of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant asks the Court to declare the Order of the CFI of 19 November 2009 in case T-94/07 null and void and to refer it back to the General Court for reconsideration.

The Appellant contests the CFI's conclusion that its lawyer, Dr Fouquet, could not represent it before the CFI and that its application was therefore inadmissible.

The CFI considers that because Dr Fouquet was nominated as a director of EREF on 29 June 2004 she could no longer be considered an independent third party. The Appellant submits that Dr Fouquet had not been formally nominated as a director of EREF — under Belgian law such a nomination would have required official registration with the competent Belgian authorities. The director status of Dr Fouquet at EREF was titular only and not, or only to a very limited extent, linked to the power of representation.

The Appellant also submits that even if it is assumed that the position of Dr Fouquet as director was of a formal nature the CFI incorrectly applied the criteria for assessing the status of a lawyer as an independent third party. It is submitted that the CFI misunderstood both the legal situation of EREF's representative before the Court and the real distribution of tasks and obligations between Dr Fouquet and EREF. Pursuant to German law the position of Dr Fouquet as director of EREF would allow her to represent the Appellant before the Court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 19 January 2010 — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

(Case C-30/10)

2010/C 100/26

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Linköpings tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lotta Andersson

Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

Question referred

Is a national provision which excludes an employee from a preferential right on the basis that he, on his own or together with his close relatives, more recently than six months before the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the employer’s undertaking or business and had a considerable influence on its activities compatible with Article 10(c) of Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (1) amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer? (2)

(1) OJ L 270, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 283, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel, Rouen (France) lodged on 8 February 2010 — Marc Berel, in his capacity as the authorised agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Mr Hess, in his capacity as receiver of the company Port Angot Développement, the company Rijn Schelde Mondia France, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Port of Rouen, Administration des Douanes, Port of Le Havre, the company Port Angot Développement, successor in title of the company Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers (Maprochim), Asia Pulp & Paper France v Administration des Douanes, Rouen, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Le Havre, Administration des Douanes, Le Havre

(Case C-78/10)

2010/C 113/34

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’Appel, Rouen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Berel, in his capacity as the authorised agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Mr Hess, in his capacity as receiver of the company Port Angot Développement, the company Rijn Schelde Mondia France, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Port of Rouen, Administration des douanes — Havre Port, Société Port Angot Développement, successor in title of the company Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers (Maprochim), Asia Pulp & Paper France

Defendants: Administration des Douanes, Rouen, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Le Havre, Administration des Douanes, Le Havre

Question referred

Do Articles 213, 233 and 239 of the Community Customs Code (1) prevent a joint and several co-debtor of a customs debt who is not the beneficiary of a decision to remit that debt from enforcing, against the administration responsible for collection, the decision to remit based on Article 239 of the Community Customs Code which that administration notified to another joint and several co-debtor, in order to be excused payment of the customs debt?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/18

Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350)

(Case C-54/10 P)

2010/C 113/27

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07;

— refer the case back to the General Court;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the trade marks belonging to the appellant do not qualify for registration.

The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) or 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or both of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE v Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilias

(Case C-128/10)

2010/C 134/38

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE

Defendants: Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilias (Minister for Mercantile Marine)

Question referred

Do the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), interpreted in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services, allow national schemes to be adopted, whereby shipowners cannot provide cabotage services without a prior administrative authorisation, when: (a) the purpose of the authorisation system in question is to allow verification of whether, in light of the prevailing conditions in a specific port, the schedules declared by the shipowner can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port and verification of the ability of the scheduled vessel to enter a specific port unhindered at the time declared by the shipowner as the preferred time for a specific service without, however, determination in advance in a legal rule of the criteria on the basis of which the authorities rule on such questions, especially in a case where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time; (b) at the same time, the authorisation system in question constitutes a means of imposing public service obligations, inasmuch as it has in that respect the following features: (i) it applies without exception to all scheduled shipping routes to the islands, (ii) it grants the administrative authority responsible for issuing authorisations the broadest discretionary powers in terms of imposing public service obligations, without determining in advance in a legal rule the criteria for the exercise of those powers and without determining in advance the content of the public service obligations which may be imposed?
1.

Can clause 2.1 of Council Directive 96/34/ΕC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, interpreted in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relating to the rights of the child — and in light of the enhanced level of protection of those rights which has been brought about by the Charter of Fundamental Rights — be regarded as also creating in parallel a right to parental leave for the child, so that, if twins have been born, the grant of one period of parental leave constitutes an infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of birth and a restriction on the right of twins that is not permitted by the principle of proportionality?
(b)

Is the view taken by the tax authorities, that there are no serious commercial reasons for the acquiring company’s request to transfer tax losses, leading them to conclude that, from the acquiring company’s point of view, there was no apparent commercial interest in acquisition, since the acquired company had developed no activity as a holding company and had no financial holdings, and would consequently transfer only substantial losses, although the merger might represent a positive effect in terms of the cost structure of the group, compatible with that provision of Community law?
1.

Are Article 7(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the associated case-law, in particular the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases 102/77 Hoffmann-La Roche v Centrafarm (2) and 1/81 Pfizer v Eurim-Pharm (3) and Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v Paranova (4), to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may rely on these provisions in order to prevent a parallel importer’s marketing company, which is the holder of a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in a Member State, from selling that product with an indication that the product is repackaged by the marketing company, although the marketing company has the physical repackaging carried out by another company, the repackaging company, to which the marketing company gives instructions for the purchasing and repackaging of the product, for the detailed design of the product’s packaging and for other arrangements in relation to the product, and which holds the repackaging authorisation and reaffixes the trade mark on the new package in the course of repackaging?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 15 April 2010 — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-186/10)

2010/C 179/32

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tural Oguz

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question referred

Where a Turkish national, having leave to remain in the United Kingdom on condition that he does not engage in any business or profession, enters into self-employment in breach of that condition and then applies to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he has now established, is he entitled to the benefit of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2010 — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado and Coordinadora de Organizaciones Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

(Case C-197/10)

2010/C 195/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya

Defendants: Administración del Estado and Coordinadora de Organizaciones Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

Question referred

Is Article 9(2)(b) of Royal Decree 1470/2007 of 2 November 2007, which makes the opportunity to acquire entitlement to single payments from the national reserve subject to the condition that young farmers should have set up their first business under a Rural Development Programme established under Council Regulation No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005, compatible with Article 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2) of 29 September 2003?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;
1.

Can the determination that a strategic assessment of effects on the environment need not be carried out in the case of documents relating to land planning at local level, in the detailed conclusions of which only one subject of economic activity is mentioned, as laid down in the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia in point 3.4 of Decree No 967 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 18 August 2004‘confirming the schedule governing the procedure for the strategic assessment of the environmental effects of plans and programmes’, be regarded as a specification of types of plans and programmes within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment? (1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 3, de Almería (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía

(Case C-230/10)

()

2010/C 209/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No3, de Almería

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Águeda María Sáenz Morales

Defendant: Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía

Question referred

Is Directive 1999/70/EC (1) applicable to the civil service of the administration of the Junta de Andalucía (temporary staff) and, if so, are civil servants entitled to receive three-yearly increments corresponding to periods when they were working as temporary civil servants?

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).