do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-277/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)) — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA (Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Sick leave — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take annual leave at another time)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: incapacity for work, interpretation of the law, labour law, paid leave, rest period, social legislation








C_2009267EN.01002002.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/20





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)) — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA
(Case C-277/08) (1)

(Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time)
2009/C 267/35
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Francisco Vicente Pereda

Defendant: Madrid Movilidad SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Employee on sick leave during the period of annual leave allocated by the undertaking as a result of an accident at work which happened before that period of leave began — Right of the worker to take his annual leave during a different period

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or collective agreements which provide that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, after his recovery, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period.


(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
Case C-97/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81(1) EC — Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Groups of undertakings — Imputability of infringements — Responsibility of a parent company for the infringement of competition rules by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Rebuttable presumption where the parent company has a 100 % shareholding)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, chemical industry, unlawful agreement








C_2009267EN.01001701.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/17





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-97/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81(1) EC - Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Groups of undertakings - Imputability of infringements - Responsibility of a parent company for the infringement of competition rules by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Rebuttable presumption where the parent company has a 100 % shareholding)
2009/C 267/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak, M. van der Woude and M. Mollica, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, which rejected an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the European market for choline chloride — Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
Case C-361/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2009 by Mr Hans Molter against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Hans Molter v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, action for annulment (EU), civil servant, jurisdiction








C_2010113EN.01001501.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/15





Appeal brought on 10 September 2009 by Mr Hans Molter against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Hans Molter v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-361/09 P)
2010/C 113/21
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Hans Molter (represented by: T. Damerau, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 5 February 2010 and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Case F-139/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Van Arum v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Staff Report — Scope of the complaint referred to in Article 90 of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, professional career, staff assessment








C_2009267EN.01008302.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/83





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Van Arum v Parliament
(Case F-139/07) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Staff Report - Scope of the complaint referred to in Article 90 of the Staff Regulations)
2009/C 267/149
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J.F. De Wachter, C. Burgos and K. Zejdová)

Re:

Staff case — Application to alter, or, alternatively, to annul the Staff Report, and to order the defendant to pay the token sum of EUR 1 as damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2009, p. 49.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 831/2009 of 10 September 2009 fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 676/2009
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, Portugal, Spain, award of contract, import policy, maize, sorghum, tariff reduction








L_2009240EN.01003001.xml










11.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 240/30








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 831/2009
of 10 September 2009
         
fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 676/2009


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 676/2009 (2).












(2)


Under Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.












(3)


A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.












(4)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For tenders lodged from 28 August 2009 to 10 September 2009 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 676/2009, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be EUR 32,00 EUR/t for a total maximum quantity of 14 166 t.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 September 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 196, 28.7.2009, p. 6.

(3)  
            OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 57.
Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( OJ C 212, 5.9.2009 )
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, Sardinia, State aid, United Kingdom, advertising, control of State aid, exchange of information, industrial restructuring, natural disaster, technical cooperation








C_2009216EN.01002302.xml










10.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/23





Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 212 of 5 September 2009
)

2009/C 216/11
On page 15, under ‘Reference number of State Aid’:
for:
‘N 604/09’,
read:
‘N 604/08.’
Case F-73/09: Action brought on 10 September 2009 — Sukup v Commission
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, education grant, family benefit








C_2009267EN.01008403.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/84





Action brought on 10 September 2009 — Sukup v Commission
(Case F-73/09)
2009/C 267/153
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Sukup (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Stéphane Rodriguez and Christophe Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the ‘Office for administration and payment of individual rights’ of the European Commission refusing to grant the applicant dependant child allowance or education allowance.

Form of order sought







—


declare the action inadmissible;










—


annul the decision adopted on 22 January 2009 by the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's claim and, in so far as necessary, the decision adopted on 29 May 2009 by the Appointing Authority rejecting his complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case C-100/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Legislation on the keeping and marketing of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, import restriction, protection of animal life, quantitative restriction, trade restriction








C_2009267EN.01001702.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/17





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-100/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Legislation on the keeping and marketing of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States)
2009/C 267/29
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, acting as Agent, G. Van Calster, avocat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Prohibition to keep certain birds legally brought to the market in other Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC by






—


making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the market legally in other Member States subject to restrictive conditions that require the market participants concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to comply with the special Belgian legislative requirements, and failing to recognise the marking accepted in other Member States or certificates issued in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; and










—


denying traders the possibility to receive exemptions from the prohibition to keep indigenous European birds which were brought to the market legally in other Member States.














2.


orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
Case F-124/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v Parliament (Promotion — 2006 promotion exercise — Comparative examination of the merits)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, anti-discriminatory measure, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment, workers' representation








C_2010024EN.01007203.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/72





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v Parliament
(Case F-124/07) (1)

(Promotion - 2006 promotion exercise - Comparative examination of the merits)
2010/C 24/132
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and R. Ignătescu, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment, first, of the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Parliament to allocate two promotion points to the applicant for 2005 and, second, of the decision to not promote the applicant to grade AD 13 for the 2006 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the parties to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 56.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2009 of 10 September 2009 fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 677/2009
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, Portugal, award of contract, import policy, maize, sorghum, tariff reduction, third country








L_2009240EN.01003101.xml










11.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 240/31








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 832/2009
of 10 September 2009
         
fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 677/2009


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Portugal from third countries was opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 677/2009 (2).












(2)


Under Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 of 18 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal (3) the Commission, in accordance the procedure laid down in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, may decide to fix a maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1296/2008 must be taken into account.












(3)


A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.












(4)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For tenders lodged from 28 August 2009 to 10 September 2009 under the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 677/2009, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be EUR 25,95/t for a total maximum quantity of 6 396 t.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 September 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 196, 28.7.2009, p. 7.

(3)  
            OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 57.
Case C-366/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG (Harmonisation of laws — Directive 95/2/EC — Part A of Annex III — Directive 2001/113/EC — Second paragraph of Part II of Annex I — Extra jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative — Term low sugar jam )
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dyestuff, food additive, fruit product, interpretation of the law, product designation, sweetener








C_2009267EN.01002301.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/23





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG
(Case C-366/08) (1)

(Harmonisation of laws - Directive 95/2/EC - Part A of Annex III - Directive 2001/113/EC - Second paragraph of Part II of Annex I - Extra jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative - Term ‘low sugar jam’)
2009/C 267/39
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: Adolf Darbo AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (OJ 1995 L 61, p. 1) and the second paragraph of Part II of Annex I to Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 10, p. 67) — Ability to market, under the name ‘extra jam’, jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative — Term ‘low-sugar jam’.

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘low-sugar jams’ in Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, as amended by Directive 98/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 October 1998, covers jams described as ‘jam’ and ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content appreciably lower than the reference value of 60 %. Products described as ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content of 58 % cannot be considered to be low sugar within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.