do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-94/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Execution of a judgment — Reimbursement of expenses — Intention of the administration to make a deduction from the invalidity allowance of the official — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Action for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, civil law, disability insurance, fine, indemnification, indemnity insurance, occupational accident








C_2010024EN.01007802.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/78





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-94/08) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Execution of a judgment - Reimbursement of expenses - Intention of the administration to make a deduction from the invalidity allowance of the official - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Action for damages - Manifestly inadmissible)
2010/C 24/147
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to claim the costs in Case T-241/03 and an application for damages for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action brought by Mr Marcuccio is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009, p. 46.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5652 — GIP/Credit Suisse Group/General Electric Company/Gatwick Airport Limited) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: airport, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, investment company, management, merger control, processing industry, service, technology








C_2009259EN.01003501.xml










29.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/35





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5652 — GIP/Credit Suisse Group/General Electric Company/Gatwick Airport Limited)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 259/14






1.


On 21 October 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘EC Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Global Infrastructure Partners and affiliated funds (‘GIP’), which is jointly controlled by Credit Suisse Group (‘CSG’) and General Electric Company (‘GE’), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Gatwick Airport Limited (‘GAL’) (UK), currently owned by BAA Airports Limited (‘BAA’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


GIP: is a private equity fund which invests in equity and equity-related investments in infrastructure and infrastructure-related assets across both the OECD and selected emerging market countries. Its portfolio includes its 75 % joint controlling interest in London City Airport,










—


CSG: is a global financial services group active in investment banking, private banking, asset management and other financial services,










—


GE: is a diversified manufacturing, technology and services company active on worldwide basis,










—


BAA: is primarily active in the provision of airport management and infrastructure services on a worldwide basis,










—


GAL: operates Gatwick Airport, which is the UK's second largest airport.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5652 — GIP/Credit Suisse Group/General Electric Company/Gatwick Airport Limited, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-444/09: Action brought on 29 October 2009 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, footwear industry, leather industry, pulp and paper industry, trade-mark law








C_2010011EN.01003401.xml










16.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/34





Action brought on 29 October 2009 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert
(Case T-444/09)
2010/C 11/63
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: La City (La Courneuve, France) (represented by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert (Engelskirchen, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 5 August 2009 in Case R 233/2008-1;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘citydogs’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25 (Application No 4 692 381)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the French word mark ‘CITY’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25; the opposition is against registration in Classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) owing to the absence of likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5636 — Mcjunkin/Transmark) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, mechanical engineering, merger control, piping, restrictive-practice authorisation, tube








C_2009259EN.01000101.xml










29.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5636 — Mcjunkin/Transmark)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 259/01
On 13 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5636. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-436/09: Action brought on 29 October 2009 — Dufour v ECB
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, access to EU information, appeal, database, labour mobility, personnel administration, recruitment, report, thesis








C_2010011EN.01003101.xml










16.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/31





Action brought on 29 October 2009 — Dufour v ECB
(Case T-436/09)
2010/C 11/59
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Julien Dufour (Jolivet, France) (represented by: I. Schoenacker Rossi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought







—


Annul the confirmatory refusal sent by the Board of Directors of the European Central Bank to Mr Dufour by letter dated 2 September 2009 regarding the databases which made possible the compilation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility;










—


Consequently, order the European Central Bank to give to Mr Dufour all the databases which made possible the compilation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility;










—


Order the European Central Bank to pay the sum of EUR 5 000 in damages in view of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the European Central Bank’s decision of 2 September 2009 refusing to grant him access to the databases which made possible the compilation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility from 1999 to 2009 and which he had requested in the course of preparing his doctoral thesis, and an order for damages because of the delay in the writing of his thesis.
In support of his action, the applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the refusal to grant him access to the documents in question is unlawful because it relies on exceptions which are unsubstantiated and not provided for by Decision ECB/2004/3 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (1), which was adopted with a view to the implementation of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2), and is based on the incorrect assumption that the fact that the databases are in an unprinted electronic form means that they are not ‘documents’. Lastly, the European Central Bank is not entitled to rely on, as against the applicant, the difficulties encountered in making the documents available.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1028/2009 of 29 October 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Amarene Brusche di Modena (PGI))
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, fruit product, location of production, product designation








L_2009283EN.01003901.xml










30.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 283/39








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1028/2009
of 29 October 2009
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Amarene Brusche di Modena (PGI))


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Amarene Brusche di Modena’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 October 2009.


For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 71, 25.3.2009, p. 25.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Amarene Brusche di Modena (PGI)
Case C-428/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 October 2009 — Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier ministre, Ministre du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministre de la santé et des sports
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, casual employment, interpretation of the law, leisure park, rest period, seasonal worker, working time








C_2010024EN.01002202.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 October 2009 — Union Syndicale ‘Solidaires Isère’ v Premier ministre, Ministre du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministre de la santé et des sports
(Case C-428/09)
2010/C 24/40
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Union Syndicale ‘Solidaires Isère’

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministre de la santé et des sports

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 2003/88/EC (1) apply to occasional or seasonal staff carrying out a maximum of 80 days of work a year in holiday and leisure activity centres?










2.


If this question is answered in the affirmative:






(a)


In view of the purpose of the Directive which, as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, is to lay down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time, must Article 17 thereof be interpreted as allowing:






—


under Article 17(1), the occasional or seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts to be regarded as an activity for which ‘on account of the specific characteristics of the activity concerned, the duration of the working time is not measured and/or predetermined or can be determined by the workers themselves’, or










—


under Article 17(3)(b), the occasional or seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts to be regarded as ‘security and surveillance activities requiring a permanent presence in order to protect property and persons’?














(b)


in the latter case, should the conditions laid down in Article 17(2), in terms of ‘equivalent periods of compensatory rest’ or ‘appropriate protection’ to be afforded to the workers concerned, be regarded as being satisfied by a rule restricting the activity of a person with the contracts in question to 80 days of work a year in holiday and leisure activity centres?










(1)  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 L 299, p. 9).
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals ( OJ L 147, 30.6.1995 )
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, cereal product, cereals, common organisation of markets, export refund, export tax








L_2009282EN.01004401.xml










29.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 282/44







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals
(
Official Journal of the European Communities L 147 of 30 June 1995
)

On page 9, Article 5(3), point (b):
for:






‘(b)


they are accompanied by a written undertaking to submit, in respect of quantities awarded and within two days of receipt of notification of award pursuant to Article 7(3), an application for advance fixing of an export refund or, where applicable, an application for advance fixing of an export tax equal to the amount tendered;’,




read:






‘(b)


they are accompanied by a written undertaking to submit, in respect of quantities awarded and within two days of receipt of the notification of award pursuant to Article 7(3), an export licence application or, where applicable, an application for an export licence with advance fixing of an export tax equal to the amount tendered;’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5608 — Advent/Median Clinics) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, investment company, medical institution, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2009259EN.01000102.xml










29.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5608 — Advent/Median Clinics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 259/02
On 16 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5608. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-551/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC — Self-employed activity of reinsurance — Taking up and pursuit — National provisions prior to the directive — Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, insurance








C_2009312EN.01000902.xml










19.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/9





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
(Case C-551/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/68/EC - Self-employed activity of reinsurance - Taking up and pursuit - National provisions prior to the directive - Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
2009/C 312/14
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Yerrell and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with 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 (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the text of the national provisions adopted in the field covered by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 64;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55 of 7.3.2009.