do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-123/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2010 — Waltraud Brachner v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
Date: 2010-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, equal treatment, gender equality, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social security








C_2010148EN.01001401.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2010 — Waltraud Brachner v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
(Case C-123/10)
2010/C 148/21
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Waltraud Brachner

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the annual pension adjustment system (valorisation) provided for in the law on the statutory pension insurance scheme falls within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 4(1) of that directive?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
Is Article 4 of Directive 79/7/EEC to be interpreted as precluding a national provision concerning an annual pension adjustment whereby a potentially smaller increase is provided for a particular category of pensioners receiving a small pension than for other pensioners, in so far as the provision in question adversely affects 25 % of male pensioners, but 57 % of female pensioners and there are no objective grounds for discrimination?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
May a disadvantage for female pensioners arising from the annual increase in their pensions be justified by the earlier age at which they become entitled to a pension and/or the longer period during which they receive a pension and/or by the fact that the standard amount for a minimum income, provided for under social law (balancing supplement standard amount), was disproportionately increased, where the provisions concerning the payment of the minimum income provided for under social law (balancing supplement) require account to be taken of the pensioner’s other income and the income of a spouse living in the common household, whereas in the case of other pensioners the pension increase takes place without account being taken of the pensioner’s other income or the income of the pensioner’s spouse?






(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).
Case T-110/10: Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission
Date: 2010-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, appeal, audit, claim, redemption








C_2010134EN.01004001.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/40





Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission
(Case T-110/10)
2010/C 134/68
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the action to be admissible and well-founded;










—


Declare that the Commission's demand for repayment of a sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, therefore, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 84 120;










—


Order that the action be joined to Case T-366/09, on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the Court to declare that the debit note of 28 January 2010 by which the Commission, following an audit report from OLAF, demanded recovery of the advances paid to the applicant, does not comply with the terms of the EL HIERRO (NNE5/2001/950) contract concluded within the framework of a specific program for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, the environment and sustainable development.
The applicant puts forwards two pleas in law.
By the first plea in law, it challenges the enforceability of the debt claimed by the Commission following the audit carried out in 2005.
By the second plea in law, it claims that the Commission, by issuing the new debit note, is in breach of its contractual obligations which no longer entitle it to demand, six years after the last payment to Insula and without notification on its part in the period laid down by the contract, additional supporting documentary evidence.
Council Decision of 8 March 2010 appointing two Maltese members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers
Date: 2010-03-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Malta, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, free movement of workers








C_2010060EN.01000201.xml










11.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 8 March 2010
appointing two Maltese members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers
2010/C 60/03
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1), and in particular Articles 26 and 27 thereof,
Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decisions of 25 September 2008 (2), of 13 October 2008 (3) and of 25 May 2009 (4), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2008 to 24 September 2010, with the exception of certain members including the Maltese members in the category of employers’ organisation representatives.










(2)


The Maltese Government has submitted nominations for two posts to be filled,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The following are hereby appointed members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period ending on 24 September 2010:
EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternates




Malta


Mr Joshua ZAMMIT
Mr Reginald FAVA


 





Done at Brussels, 8 March 2010.


For the Council


The President

C. CORBACHO




(1)  OJ L 257, 18.10.1968, p. 2.

(2)  OJ C 253, 4.10.2008, p. 7.

(3)  OJ C 264, 17.10.2008, p. 5.

(4)  OJ C 123, 3.6.2009, p. 11.
Case T-155/09: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2010 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2010-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), computer, computer systems, trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01003601.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/36





Order of the General Court of 8 March 2010 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom)
(Case T-155/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2010/C 134/61
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Maxcom Sp. z o.o. (Tychy, Poland) (represented by: P. Kral, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Schimanek-Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG (Marl, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2009 (Case R 1019/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG and Maxcom Sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the order

The General Court:






1.


Rules that there is no need to adjudicate;










2.


Orders Maxcom Sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.






(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.