do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-132/10: Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to act, damage, dismissal, economic concentration, indemnification, labour law, merger control








C_2010148EN.01003501.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/35





Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission
(Case T-132/10)
2010/C 148/61
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Communauté de communes de Lacq (Mourenx, France) (represented by: J. Daniel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 000 because of the unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission’s behaviour in the light of the breach, by ACETEX, of its undertakings;










—


order the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 by way of non -recoverable costs;










—


order the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Communauté de communes de Lacq (Community of the communes of Lacq) seeks damages for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision to declare compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement the concentration involving the acquisition, by Celanese Corporation, of control of Acetex Corporation, without acknowledging the legal value to an alleged undertaking by Celanese, in particular the commitment to continue the operation of the Acetex factory in Pardies for five years (Case COMP/M.3625 — Blackstone/Acetex).
In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations since, through its interpretation of the EC Merger Regulation, (1) it deprived all third parties to concentrations (employees and local officials) of protection, even though, in the light of the commitments given by Celanese Corporation, it was certain that employees would be protected against a cessation of activity for five years.
The applicant thus certainly suffered significant damage. Indeed, local authorities in that area are deprived of important fiscal resources and have to pay out numerous social benefits because of the closure of the site. Numerous redundancies must be expected, both among employees of Acetex and also among employees of companies whose activities were closely linked to that of Celanese Corporation.
In the alternative, if it cannot be established that there was tortious liability on the part of the European Commission, the applicant asks that the Commission be held strictly liable. There can be no doubt as to the damage suffered by the applicant and its unusual and special nature and that that damage was directly caused by the refusal of the European Commission to sanction Celanese Corporation.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)
Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations ( OJ L 131, 28.5.2009 )
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: international standard, maritime safety, pollution from ships, prevention of pollution, roadworthiness tests, technical regulations, transport safety, vessel




L_2010074EN.01000101.xml










22.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 74/1







Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations
(Recast)
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 28 May 2009
)

On page 14, Article 6(1):
for:


‘1.   In addition to the measures taken under Article 5, the Commission may, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 12(2), impose fines on a recognised organisation:






(a)








—


whose serious or repeated failure to fulfil the minimum criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under Articles 8(4), 9, 10 and 11,
or










—


whose worsening performance reveals serious shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls;




or










(b)


which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment pursuant to Article 8(1) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.’,






read:


‘1.   In addition to the measures taken under Article 5, the Commission may, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 12(2), impose fines on a recognised organisation:






(a)








—


whose serious or repeated failure to fulfil the minimum criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under Articles 8(4), 9, 10 and 11,
or










—


whose worsening performance




reveals serious shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls; or










(b)


which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment pursuant to Article 8(1) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.’.
Case T-45/09: Order of the General Court of 22 March 2010 — Al Barakaat International Foundation v Commission
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Afghanistan, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), human rights, international sanctions, terrorism








C_2010148EN.01005105.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/51





Order of the General Court of 22 March 2010 — Al Barakaat International Foundation v Commission
(Case T-45/09) (1)

2010/C 148/87

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
Case C-39/09 P: Order of the Court of 22 March 2010 — Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Common organisation of the banana market — Arrangements for importing bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community — Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer — Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy — Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, competition law, import policy, indemnification, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, tropical fruit








C_2010234EN.01001702.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/17





Order of the Court of 22 March 2010 — Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-39/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Common organisation of the banana market - Arrangements for importing bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community - Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer - Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy - Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
2010/C 234/25
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) (represented by: A. Farache, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, E. Sitbon, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 in Case T-128/05 SPM v Council and Commission, by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action seeking damages for the loss which it suffered as a result of the allegedly illegal rules adopted by the Council and the Commission on the import of bananas into the Community — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Bananas originating in ACP countries — Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer — Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy — Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009
Council Decision of 22 March 2010 appointing the Polish members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Poland, advisory committee (EU), alternate, appointment of members, employers' organisation, occupational health, occupational safety, trade union








C_2010087EN.01001101.xml










1.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/11





COUNCIL DECISION
of 22 March 2010
appointing the Polish members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work
2010/C 87/04
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Decision 2003/C 218/01 of 22 July 2003 on the setting up of an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


in its Decision of 16 February 2010 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 March 2010 until 28 February 2013, except for certain members and alternate members, including the Polish members and alternate members for the trade union and employers’ organisation categories.










(2)


the Polish Government has proposed candidates for the vacant seats,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2013:







I.



Trade Union Representatives







Members


Alternates




Ms Iwona PAWLACZYK


Mr Mariusz ŁUSZCZYK
Mr Andrzej SZCZEPANIAK














II.



Employers’ Representatives







Members


Alternates




Mr Zbigniew ŻUREK


Mr Jacek MĘCINA
Mr Marek KOŁODZIEJSKI









Done at Brussels, 22 March 2010.


For the Council


The President

M. Á. MORATINOS




(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Not yet published in the OJ.
2010/319/: Council Decision of 22 March 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA)
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Israel, approval, association agreement (EU), industrial product








L_2010145EN.01000101.xml










11.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 145/1








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 22 March 2010
         
on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA)
(2010/319/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Association Agreement’) (1), entered into force on 20 November 1995.












(2)


Article 47 of the Association Agreement provides, where appropriate, for the conclusion of a European conformity assessment Agreement, and Article 55 of the Association Agreement provides for the use of best endeavours to approximate the laws of the Parties.












(3)


The Protocol to the Association Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) (hereinafter ‘the Protocol’), initialled in Brussels on 24 June 2009, should be signed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (CAA) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Protocol’ (2)), is hereby approved on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Protocol, on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 22 March 2010.


For the Council


The President

M. Á. MORATINOS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 147, 21.6.2000, p. 3.

(2)  The Protocol shall be published in the Official Journal at a later date.
Case T-131/10: Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Saupiquet v Commission
Date: 2010-03-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, France, Thailand, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, import, redemption, sea fish, tariff quota








C_2010148EN.01003402.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/34





Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Saupiquet v Commission
(Case T-131/10)
2010/C 148/60
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Saupiquet (Courbevoie Cedex, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul, in full, Commission Decision No REM 07/08 of 16 December 2009;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009, informing the French authorities that the repayment to the applicant of import duties on cans of tuna originating in Thailand is not justified (file REM 07/08).
In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to guarantee that importers, established in France or in other Member States in which customs offices are legally closed on Sundays, who lodged their customs declarations on Monday 2 July 2007 would have equal and non-discriminatory access to quota No 09.2005 for the period 2007/2008,






—


by not taking, in the circumstances of the present case in which that quota was opened on Sunday, 1 July 2007, regulatory measures that would have made it possible to treat those importers in a manner that is equal and free from discrimination;










—


by not postponing the date of opening of that quota until Monday, 2 July 2007, even though the quota in question was very critical.