do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-280/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Perry v Commission (Action for damages — Limitation period — Admissibility)
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU aid, European Commission, action by staff, fraud against the EU, humanitarian aid








C_2009141EN.01004201.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/42





Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Perry v Commission
(Case T-280/08) (1)

(Action for damages - Limitation period - Admissibility)
2009/C 141/87
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Claude Perry (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Culioli, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

Re:

Application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegations of misuse of Community subsidies in the performance of certain contracts concluded by the Commission with the applicant’s companies.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Mr Claude Perry is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
Case C-119/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil service, door-to-door selling, drawing up of the budget, interpretation of the law, marketing, restriction on competition, trust company








C_2009141EN.01002802.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique
(Case C-119/09)
2009/C 141/49
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable

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

Question referred

Was Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) intended to proscribe, in respect of the regulated professions falling within its scope, any general prohibition [on commercial communications], whatever the form of commercial practice concerned, or does it leave the Member States the option of maintaining general prohibitions in respect of certain commercial practices, such as canvassing?


(1)  OJ L 376, p. 36.
Case C-118/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission (Austria) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Robert Koller v Rechtsanwaltsprüfungskommission beim Oberlandesgericht Graz
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU national, interpretation of the law, level of education, recognition of diplomas, recognition of studies, university, vocational training








C_2009141EN.01002801.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission (Austria) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Robert Koller v Rechtsanwaltsprüfungskommission beim Oberlandesgericht Graz
(Case C-118/09)
2009/C 141/48
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Robert Koller

Defendant: Rechtsanwaltsprüfungskommission beim Oberlandesgericht Graz

Questions referred







1.


Is Directive 89/48/EEC (1) applicable to the case of an Austrian national if he






(a)


successfully completed his diploma course in law in Austria and was awarded by decision the academic degree of ‘Magister der Rechtswissenschaften’,










(b)


after taking supplementary examinations at a Spanish university, which however involved less than three years of study, was then granted, by a certificate of recognition from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Kingdom of Spain, the entitlement to use the Spanish title ‘Licenciado en Derecho’, which is equivalent to the Austrian title, and










(c)


by registering with the Madrid Chamber of Lawyers gained the entitlement to use the professional title ‘abogado’ and actually pursued the profession of a lawyer in Spain for three weeks before making the application and for five months at the most before the first instance decision?














2.


In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is it compatible with Directive 89/48/EEC to interpret Paragraph 24 of the Bundesgesetz über den freien Dienstleistungsverkehr und die Niederlassung von europäischen Rechtsanwälten in Österreich (Federal law on the free movement of services and the establishment of European lawyers in Austria, ‘EuRAG’) as meaning that obtaining an Austrian degree in law and attaining the entitlement to use the Spanish title ‘Licenciado en Derecho’ after taking supplementary examinations at a Spanish university over a period of less than three years of study is not sufficient for admission to the aptitude test in Austria under Paragraph 24(1) of the EuRAG without proof of the practice required under national law (Paragraph 2(2) of the Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Lawyers’ Code, ‘RAO’), even if the applicant has been admitted as an ‘abogado’ in Spain without a comparable requirement for practice and had pursued the profession there for three weeks before making the application and for five months at the most before the first instance decision?






(1)  OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16
Case T-385/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Valero Jordana v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Action for annulment — Action for Damages — Promotion — Award of priority points)
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), personnel administration, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment








C_2009113EN.01003001.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/30





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Valero Jordana v Commission
(Case T-385/04) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Action for annulment - Action for Damages - Promotion - Award of priority points)
2009/C 113/60
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola and I. Van Schendel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, initially, and V. Joris and G. Berscheid, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, subsequently)

Re:

Annulment of:






—


the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service of the Commission awarding the applicant only one DG priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, communicated on 7 July 2003 and confirmed by decision of the appointing authority notified on 16 December 2003;










—


the decision of the appointing authority to award the applicant a total of 20 points under the 2003 promotion exercise, notified on 16 December 2003; the merit list of officials in grade A5 under the 2003 promotion exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 6-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003; and the decision not to enter the applicant’s name on those lists;










—


the decision of the appointing authority not to grant to the applicant one additional priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, as follows from the letter of 22 February 2007 and the decision of 17 April 2007; and




damages amounting to EUR 5 000.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Commission decisions fixing the total promotion points for Mr Gregorio Valero Jordana at 20 points and refusing to enter his name on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 promotion exercise;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.
Action brought on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein — (Case E-3/09)
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA Court, European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, reinsurance, supervisory body








C_2009099EN.01001001.xml










30.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/10





Action brought on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
(Case E-3/09)
2009/C 99/08
An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:






1.


By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA.
and










2.


The Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance Directive.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not provided any indication that it has implemented the Directive into Liechtenstein law.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not disputed that it has not implemented the Directive.
Case C-120/09: Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, Walloon region (Belgium), action for failure to fulfil an obligation, groundwater, health control, storage of waste, waste management, water treatment








C_2009141EN.01002803.xml










20.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/28





Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-120/09)
2009/C 141/50
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to transpose into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission raises two grounds of complaint in support of its action.
First, it alleges that the defendant has not transposed into the law of the Walloon Region the concepts of ‘underground storage’, ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ provided for by the provisions of Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. The Commission draws attention to the importance of those concepts which, being key concepts for the application of the directive, are also referred to in other provisions adopted on the basis of and in application of that directive.
Secondly, the applicant complains that Walloon law does not include any provisions relating to the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality. Point 4C of Annex III to the directive, which provides for the drawing up of such provisions, is crucially important in order to ensure effective control of groundwater quality and, consequently, to guarantee the protection of the environment which constitutes the essential objective of the directive.


(1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.
Case F-32/09: Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Andrikopoulou v Council
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, promotion








C_2009129EN.01002202.xml










6.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/22





Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Andrikopoulou v Council
(Case F-32/09)
2009/C 129/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Anna Andrikopoulou (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, to the extent that it is necessary, the decision to promote to that grade less meritorious officials.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, to the extent that it is necessary, the decision to promote to that grade less meritorious officials;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2009078EN.01000101.xml










1.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

31 March 2009
2009/C 78/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3308




JPY


Japanese yen


131,17




DKK


Danish krone


7,4482




GBP


Pound sterling


0,93080




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9400




CHF


Swiss franc


1,5152




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,8900




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,388




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,18




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7096




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6885




RON


Romanian leu


4,2385




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2212




AUD


Australian dollar


1,9216




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,6685




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3140




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,3288




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0234




KRW


South Korean won


1 840,63




ZAR


South African rand


12,6140




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,0942




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4769




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 570,36




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8514




PHP


Philippine peso


64,320




RUB


Russian rouble


45,0320




THB


Thai baht


47,223




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0767




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7623




INR


Indian rupee


67,3920






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-33/09: Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Tzvetanova v Commission
Date: 2009-04-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), expatriate worker, indemnification








C_2009129EN.01002203.xml










6.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/22





Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Tzvetanova v Commission
(Case F-33/09)
2009/C 129/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aglika Tzvetanova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission to refuse the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;










—


Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.