do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-137/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — The European Communities v The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU institution, European Commission, European Community, diplomatic representation, interpretation of the law, legal action, power of attorney








C_2010148EN.01001502.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — The European Communities v The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
(Case C-137/10)
2010/C 148/24
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The European Communities

Defendant: The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 282 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular the phrase ‘[t]o this end, the Community shall be represented by the Commission’, contained in the second sentence of that article, be interpreted as meaning that an institution is properly authorised to represent the Community simply by virtue of the existence of an authority by which the Commission has delegated to that institution its powers of representation in legal proceedings, irrespective of whether or not that authority appointed by name a natural person empowered to represent the delegate institution?










2.


If not, can a national court such as the Conseil d’Etat verify the admissibility of an appeal lodged by a European institution which has been duly authorised to bring legal proceedings by the Commission, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 282 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, by examining whether that institution is represented by the appropriate natural person empowered to bring proceedings before the national court?










3.


In the alternative, and in the event of an affirmative reply to the foregoing question, must the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 207(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, more specifically the phrase ‘assisted by a Deputy Secretary-General responsible for the running of the General Secretariat’, be interpreted as meaning that the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council may properly represent the Council for the purposes of bringing proceedings before the national courts?
Case F-17/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — Daake v OHIM
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pay, servant (EU), unemployment insurance








C_2010134EN.01005601.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/56





Action brought on 15 March 2010 — Daake v OHIM
(Case F-17/10)
2010/C 134/93
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Simone Daake (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of OHIM’s decision of 4 December 2009 rejecting the applicant’s claims for compensation

Form of order sought







—


Order OHIM to compensate the applicant for material damage amounting to the difference between:






—


on the one hand, her actual salary according to her formal classification as a member of the contract staff under Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants (‘CEOS’) from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits paid to her from 1 November 2008 until today, and










—


on the other hand, the salary to which she was entitled as a member of the temporary staff under Article 2(a) of the CEOS from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits to which she was entitled from 1 November 2008 until today, calculated according to her salary for October 2008 under Article 2(a) of the CEOS –










—


together with the resulting losses to retirement pension and other indemnities, salary and benefits taking into account appropriate promotion based on her performance until 1 April 2008,










—


and — to the extent required in order for the compensation applied for to be granted — annul the decisions of OHIM of 6 May 2009 and 4 December 2009;














—


order OHIM to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage caused by the discrimination vis-à-vis other OHIM employees in an amount to be determined by the Tribunal;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.
Case T-435/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 March 2010 — GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF (Application for interim measures — Community programmes for research and technological development — Arbitration clause — Order for recovery — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Financial loss — No exceptional circumstances — No urgency)
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appeal, project of common interest, redemption, summary procedure, suspension of sentence








C_2010113EN.01004603.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/46





Order of the President of the General Court of 15 March 2010 — GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF
(Case T-435/09 R)
(Application for interim measures - Community programmes for research and technological development - Arbitration clause - Order for recovery - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Financial loss - No exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
2010/C 113/76
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GL2006 Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Gardenal and E. Belinguier-Raiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, and R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 10 July 2009 terminating the applicant’s participation in two Community projects and the debit notes issued on 7 August 2009 by which the Commission claimed repayment of sums paid pursuant to Community projects in which the applicant participated

Operative part of the order







1.


The European Commission shall be regarded as the sole defendant.










2.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-132/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — 1. Olivier Paul Louis Halley, 2. Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie Halley and 3. Marie Joëlle Armel Halley v Belgische Staat
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, capital transfer tax, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, share








C_2010134EN.01002701.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — 1. Olivier Paul Louis Halley, 2. Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie Halley and 3. Marie Joëlle Armel Halley v Belgische Staat
(Case C-132/10)
2010/C 134/41
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

Parties to the main proceedings








Applicants


:








 


Olivier Paul Louis HALLEY










 


Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie HALLEY










 


Marie Joëlle Armel HALLEY








Defendant


:


Belgische Staat





Question referred

Is point 2 of the first paragraph of Article 137 of the Inheritance Tax Code (Wetboek Successierechten), in conjunction with Article 111 of the Inheritance Tax Code, compatible with Articles 26, 49, 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, given that the limitation period in respect of inheritance tax payable on registered shares is two years where the company’s centre of effective management is in Belgium, but 10 years where the company’s centre of effective management is not in Belgium?
Case C-134/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, consumer protection, electronic mail, telecommunications, universal service








C_2010161EN.01001801.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/18






Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-134/10)
(2010/C 161/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission raises three complaints in support of its action, which alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality by the contested national legislation, in particular with regard to the procedure and criteria leading to the award of must-carry status to radio and television networks.
First, it alleges that the defendant has failed to establish in a clear and foreseeable manner the objectives of general interest which justify the award of must-carry status. Broadcasters are therefore not in a position to ascertain in advance the nature and the scope of the conditions to be satisfied and the public service obligations it is required to observe.
Second, the Commission complains of the lack of transparency with regard to the award procedure, of the increased discretion conferred on the authorities in that the national legislation seems to impose on the bodies concerned the obligation to transmit all of the channels which it transmits and not only those channels pursuing the required objectives of general interest, as well as the discriminatory effect of the requirement as to establishment of those bodies in the national territory.
Third, the applicant alleges that the scope of Article 31 of the ‘Universal Service Directive’ was ignored with regard to making the broadcasting subject to the existence of a significant number of end-users of broadcast networks.


(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.
Case C-133/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, administrative transparency, financial management, national implementing measure, public authorities, public sector, type of business








C_2010148EN.01001501.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/15





Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-133/10)
2010/C 148/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, (1) and in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, 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 period prescribed for transposing Directive 2005/81/EC expired on 19 December 2006. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.


(1)  OJ 2005 L 312, p. 47.
Case C-135/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy), lodged on 15 March 2010 — SCF Consorzio Fonografici v Marco Del Corso
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, copyright, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, music








C_2010134EN.01002702.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy), lodged on 15 March 2010 — SCF Consorzio Fonografici v Marco Del Corso
(Case C-135/10)
2010/C 134/42
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di Appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SCF Consorzio Fonografici

Respondent: Marco Del Corso

Questions referred







1.


Are the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 26 October 1961, the TRIPs Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) directly applicable within the Community legal order?










2.


Are the abovementioned sources of uniform international law also directly effective within the context of private-law relationships?










3.


Do the concepts of ‘communication to the public’ contained in the abovementioned treaty-law texts mirror the Community concepts contained in Directives 92/100/EEC (1) and 2001/29/EC (2) and, if not, which source should take precedence?










4.


Does the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices engaged in professional economic activity, for the benefit of patients of those practices and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, constitute ‘communication to the public’ or ‘making available to the public’ for the purposes of the application of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC?










5.


Does such an act of transmission entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.