do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-89/09: Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, market-sharing agreement, medical diagnosis, research body








C_2009113EN.01002302.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/23





Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
(Case C-89/09)
2009/C 113/45
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by limiting to a maximum of one-quarter the shares and therefore the voting rights in a Société d’Exercice Libéral à Responsabilité Limitée (limited liability company formed by persons carrying on a professional activity) operating medical laboratories which can be held by persons who are not biologists and by prohibiting holdings of capital in more than two companies established in order jointly to operate one or more medical laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of the EC Treaty;










—


Order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits two pleas in law in support of its action, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the EC Treaty.
By its first plea, the applicant maintains that, by limiting to a maximum of 25% of the authorised capital of Sociétés d’Exercice Libéral à Responsabilité Limitée operating medical laboratories the shares held by shareholders not carrying on a professional activity, the national legislation restricts unduly the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. The objective of protection of public health, referred to by the defendant as a justification, could be achieved by measures less restrictive than those at issue in the present case. The Commission claims in that regard that, while it seems justified to require that medical analyses be carried out by competent staff with the appropriate professional qualifications, to require such qualifications for the mere holding of shares in or right to operate medical laboratories seems on the other hand disproportionate with regard to the objective pursued.
By its second plea in law, the Commission criticises the general prohibition on persons not carrying on a professional activity from holding capital in more than two companies established in order jointly to operate one or more medical laboratories. The objective put forward by the defendant of maintaining the decision-making power and the financial independence of the persons carrying out professional activities in the sector and the need to ensure a uniform distribution of the laboratories throughout the national territory do not justify the restrictive national measures.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 167/2009 of 2 March 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

3.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 167/2009

of 2 March 2009

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Whereas:

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of
22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agri­
cultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agri­
cultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,
the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values
for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and
periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007
of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for
Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and
(EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in
particular Article 138(1) thereof,

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regu­
lation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 March 2009.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
Director-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development

(1) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

L 58/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.3.2009

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0709 90 80

0805 10 20

0805 50 10

0808 10 80

0808 20 50

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

(EUR/100 kg)

MA
SN
TN
TR
ZZ

MA
MK
TR
ZZ

MA
TR
ZZ

EG
ZZ

EG
IL
MA
TN
TR
ZZ

EG
MA
TR
ZZ

AR
CA
CN
MK
NZ
US
ZZ

AR
CL
CN
US
ZA
ZZ

61,7
127,1
130,7
125,3
111,2

109,3
143,3
176,0
142,9

56,2
153,2
104,7

80,1
80,1

49,6
50,5
57,6
47,2
78,2
56,6

52,0
61,0
64,5
59,2

104,8
87,4
76,8
25,7
95,4
105,1
82,5

87,3
73,7
44,5
106,6
108,4
84,1

(1) Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘ZZ’ stands

for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-87/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schorndorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, consumer goods, consumer protection, electrical equipment, interpretation of the law, marketing








C_2009090EN.01002001.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schorndorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH
(Case C-87/09)
2009/C 90/31
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Schorndorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ingrid Putz

Defendant: Medianess Electronics GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Article 3(2), and the third subparagraph of Article 3(3), of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees to be interpreted as precluding a national statutory provision under which a seller, in the event that it has restored a consumer product to conformity with a contract of sale by way of replacement, does not have to pay the costs of the installation, in a particular unit, of the subsequently delivered product, in the case where the consumer has properly installed the contractually defective consumer product, if installation was not originally a contractual requirement?










2.


Are the provisions of Article 3(2), and the third subparagraph of Article 3(3), of Directive 1999/44/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a seller, in the event that it has restored a consumer product to conformity with a contract of sale by way of replacement, has to pay the costs of disconnection, from a particular unit, of the contractually defective consumer product, in the case where the consumer has properly installed the consumer product?






(1)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).
Case T-92/09: Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Strategi Group v OHIM — Reed Business Information (STRATEGI)
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), mass media, press, trade-mark law








C_2009113EN.01003901.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/39





Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Strategi Group v OHIM — Reed Business Information (STRATEGI)
(Case T-92/09)
2009/C 113/78
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Strategi Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reed Business Information (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2008 in case R 1581/2007-2 and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and










—


Order OHIM (and any intervening parties) to pay the costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STRATEGI’, for services in class 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 1 240 001 of the word mark ‘Stratégies’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in particular by ruling in the circumstances of this case that use of a trade mark as the title of a magazine may constitute use of that trade mark for services offered in that publication, and by failing to set out the proper evidential requirements needed to prove genuine use in such circumstances and/or by failing to give appropriate consideration to the evidence filed on the basis of the correct principles; Further, or in the alternative, infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal failed to properly apply the provision of the said legal provision to the circumstances of the case, since it failed to provide guidance on the evidence required to establish proof of use and/or wrongly found that the evidence filed by the opponent was inadequate to establish use of the trade mark for the services relied upon.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
Case C-294/08: Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, EC conformity marking, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approval, quantitative restriction, used goods, vehicle registration








C_2009141EN.01003503.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/35





Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
(Case C-294/08) (1)

2009/C 141/68

Language of the case: Czech

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
Case C-88/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Graphic Procédé v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European civil service, European official, approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2009113EN.01002301.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/23





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Graphic Procédé v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique
(Case C-88/09)
2009/C 113/44
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Graphic Procédé

Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

Question referred

What are the criteria to be employed in order to determine whether reprographics is a supply of goods or a provision of services [for the purposes of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment] (1)?


(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Case F-18/09: Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Merhzaoui v Council
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion








C_2009113EN.01004602.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/46





Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Merhzaoui v Council
(Case F-18/09)
2009/C 113/96
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mohamed Merhzaoui (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision to assign the applicant to the career stream AST 1-7. Secondly, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision to assign the applicant, with effect from 1 May 2006, to the career stream AST 1-7.










—


annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Case T-91/09 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission
Date: 2009-03-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appeal, professional career, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment








C_2009102EN.01003201.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/32





Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission
(Case T-91/09 P)
2009/C 102/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Declare the appeal admissible;










—


set aside the judgment delivered on 15 December 2008 by the European Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/07;










—


allow the pleadings seeking the setting aside of that judgment and compensation submitted by the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 15 December 2008 delivered in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission dismissing the action by which the appellant sought, firstly, annulment of her career development report for 2005 and, secondly, damages.
In support of her appeal, the appellant raises three pleas alleging an error of legal characterisation of the facts, a failure correctly to apply Article 5 of the general implementing provisions and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and a failure to state reasons, since the CST ruled that it could not be said that the Commission had not carried out an assessment of the appellant for the period from January to September 2005, despite the fact that the appellant’s career development report for 2005 was, almost word for word, merely a virtually identical copy of the appellant’s career development report for 2004.