do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-108/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÁNTSZ Dél-dunátúli Regionális Intézete
Date: 2009-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, free movement of goods, health care, interpretation of the law, marketing, optical industry, optics








C_2009141EN.01002401.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÁNTSZ Dél-dunátúli Regionális Intézete
(Case C-108/09)
2009/C 141/43
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.

Defendant: ÁNTSZ Dél-dunátúli Regionális Intézete

Questions referred







1.


Does the sale of contact lenses constitute medical advice requiring the physical examination of a patient and thus not fall with the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market?










2.


If the sale of contact lenses does not constitute medical advice requiring the physical examination of a patient, must Article 30 EC be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which contact lenses may be sold only in specialist medical accessory shops?










3.


Does the principle of the freedom of movement of goods laid down in Article 28 EC preclude the provision of Hungarian law which makes it possible to sell contact lenses solely in specialist medical accessory shops?






(1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’); OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1-16 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV) Hungarian Special Edition, Chapter 13, Volume 25, p. 399-414.
Council Joint Action 2009/294/CFSP of 23 March 2009 amending Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia
Date: 2009-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Georgia, common foreign and security policy, fact-finding mission, international security, war

L 79/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2009

COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2009/294/CFSP

of 23 March 2009

amending Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia,
EUMM Georgia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in
particular Article 14 thereof,

Article 14(1) of Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP shall be replaced
by the following:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

On 15 September 2008,
the Council adopted Joint
Action 2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Moni­
toring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), with a
financial reference amount of EUR 31 000 000.

2008/759/CFSP

the Council adopted Joint
On 25 September 2008,
Action
Action
amending
2008/736/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring
Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (2),
to
increase
to EUR
financial
the
35 000 000.

in order

reference

amount

Joint

reference amount
increased

The financial
should
1 February 2009,
operational needs of the Mission,

for EUMM Georgia
from
effect
in order to allow for the additional

further, with

be

‘1.
The financial reference amount intended to cover the
expenditure related to the Mission shall be EUR 37 100 000.’.

Article 2

This Joint Action shall enter into force on the date of
adoption.

its

It shall apply from 1 February 2009.

Article 3

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the
European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 March 2009.

For the Council
The President
P. GANDALOVIČ

(1) OJ L 248, 17.9.2008, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 259, 27.9.2008, p. 15.
Case T-119/09: Action brought on 23 March 2009 — Protege International v Commission
Date: 2009-03-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), alcoholic beverage, fact-finding mission, marketing








C_2009113EN.01004301.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/43





Action brought on 23 March 2009 — Protege International v Commission
(Case T-119/09)
2009/C 113/86
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Protege International Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Shefet, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 23 January relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/39.414 — Protégé International/Pernod Ricard).





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 23 January 2009 whereby the Commission, in making a finding of no sufficient Community interest to continue with the investigation, rejected the complaint brought by the applicant against Pernod Ricard regarding alleged abuse of dominant position committed by the latter in the Irish whiskey market consisting, first, of legal proceedings filed by Pernod Ricard against the applicant with regard to the application for registration as trade marks of ‘WILD GEESE’, ‘WILD GEESE RARE IRISH WHISKEY’ and ‘WILD GEESE IRISH SOLDIERS AND HEROS’ by the applicant and, second, in a refusal to supply.
In support of its action, the applicant claims that






—


the legal proceedings initiated by Pernod Ricard had the aim, not of protecting Pernod Ricard’s intellectual property rights in its trade mark ‘WILD TURKEY’, since no risk of confusion exists between the opposing marks, but that of eliminating the applicant as a competitor of Pernod Ricard in the Irish whiskey market;










—


there was an abuse of dominant position when Pernod Ricard refused to provide Irish whiskey to the applicant by reason of the latter’s refusal to accept conditions restricting sale to markets approved by Pernod Ricard;










—


there is a Community interest, since the alleged abuses concern different Member States and the Community territory as a whole.
Case C-111/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
Date: 2009-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, civil law, infringement of EU law, insurance, international trade law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2009141EN.01002502.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Cheb (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bílas
(Case C-111/09)
2009/C 141/45
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní Soud v Cheb

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Česká podnikatelská pojišt’ovna, a.s., Vienna Insurance Group

Defendant: Michal Bílas

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as not authorising a court to review its international jurisdiction where the defendant partipates in the proceedings, even when the case is subject to the rules on compulsory jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules?










2.


Can the defendant, by the fact that he partipates in the proceedings, establish the international jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation even where the proceedings are otherwise subject to the rules of compulsory jurisdiction in Section 3 of the Regulation and the application is brought contrary to those rules?










3.


If the answer to question (2) is in the negative, may the fact that the defendant participates in the proceedings before a court which otherwise under the Regulation does not have jurisdiction in a case concerning insurance, be regarded as an agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Regulation?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1
Case C-109/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgerichts (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan
Date: 2009-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, older worker, work contract, working time








C_2009141EN.01002501.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgerichts (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan
(Case C-109/09)
2009/C 141/44
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: Gertraud Kumpan

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 1, Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, which entered into force on 1 January 2001, under which fixed term employment contracts may be agreed without further conditions with workers simply because the latter have reached the age of 58?










2.


Is Clause 5(1) of the ETUC-UNICE-CEEP Framework Agreement, which was implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (2) to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes a provision of national law which, without further conditions, allows the conclusion over an indefinite period of an unlimited number of successive fixed term employment contracts without objective grounds, simply because the worker has reached the age of 58 by the time the fixed term employment relationship begins and there is no close objective connection with a previous employment relationship of indefinite duration with the same employer?










3.


If Questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative:
Must the national courts disapply the provision of national law?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 243/2009 of 23 March 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

24.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/1

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

I

REGULATIONS

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 243/2009

of 23 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 24 March 2009.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 23 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 76/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.3.2009

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)

IL
JO
MA
TN
TR
ZZ

MA
TR
ZZ

MA
TR
ZZ

EG
ZZ

EG
IL
MA
TN
TR
ZZ

TR
ZZ

AR
BR
CA
CL
CN
MK
US
UY
ZA
ZZ

AR
CL
CN
ZA
ZZ

82,5
64,0
70,2
134,4
93,0
88,8

69,5
132,1
100,8

63,8
120,0
91,9

66,1
66,1

45,2
60,1
50,2
50,3
66,2
54,4

55,7
55,7

89,3
65,3
110,4
76,9
73,8
21,2
112,9
68,9
74,1
77,0

76,0
108,3
66,7
90,9
85,5

(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’.