do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-491/09: Order of the President of the Court of 6 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2010-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, company law, demerger, merger, national implementing measure, public limited company








C_2010195EN.01001601.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/16





Order of the President of the Court of 6 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-491/09) (1)

2010/C 195/24

Language of the case: French

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


(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
Case C-161/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 6 April 2010 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd
Date: 2010-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Internet site, civil law, commercial law, data protection, fundamental rights, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, personal data








C_2010148EN.01002102.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 6 April 2010 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd
(Case C-161/10)
2010/C 148/33
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez

Defendant: MGN Limited

Question referred

Must Articles 2 and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted to mean that a court or tribunal of a Member State has jurisdiction to hear an action brought in respect of an infringement of personal rights allegedly committed by the placing on-line of information and/or photographs on an internet site published in another Member State by a company domiciled in that second State — or in a third Member State, but in any event a State other than the first Member State —:






—


on the sole condition that the internet site can be accessed from the first Member State,










—


on the sole condition that there is between the harmful act and the territory of the first Member State a link which is sufficient, substantial or significant and, in that case, whether that link can be created by:






—


the number of hits on the page at issue made from the first Member State, as an absolute figure or as a proportion of all hits on that page,










—


the residence, or nationality, of the person who complains of the infringement of his or her personal rights or, more generally, of the persons concerned,










—


the language in which the information at issue is broadcast or any other factor which may demonstrate the site publisher’s intention to address specifically the public of the first Member State,










—


the place where the events described occurred and/or where the photographic-images put on line were taken,










—


other criteria?










(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 287/2010 of 6 April 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2010087EN.01002201.xml










7.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 87/22








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 287/2010
of 6 April 2010
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


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),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 April 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 April 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


IL 


160,8 




JO 


96,4 




MA 


126,5 




TN 


138,4 




TR 


106,2 




ZZ 


125,7 




0707 00 05 


JO 


92,1 




MA 


106,5 




MK 


87,5 




TR 


127,4 




ZZ 


103,4 




0709 90 70 


MA 


98,1 




TR 


105,7 




ZZ 


101,9 




0805 10 20 


EG 


51,1 




IL 


63,4 




MA 


51,3 




TN 


48,0 




TR 


67,5 




ZZ 


56,3 




0805 50 10 


TR 


64,3 




ZA 


71,7 




ZZ 


68,0 




0808 10 80 


AR 


101,4 




BR 


88,1 




CL 


85,5 




CN 


73,4 




MK 


22,4 




US 


140,5 




UY 


74,3 




ZA 


85,5 




ZZ 


83,9 




0808 20 50 


AR 


97,2 




CL 


102,5 




CN 


92,0 




UY 


106,8 




ZA 


100,4 




ZZ 


99,8 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-158/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad Van State (Netherlands), lodged on 6 April 2010 — Johan van Leendert Holding BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
Date: 2010-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labour law, labour mobility, work permit








C_2010161EN.01002401.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/24






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad Van State (Netherlands), lodged on 6 April 2010 — Johan van Leendert Holding BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
(Case C-158/10)
(2010/C 161/33)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Johan van Leendert Holding BV

Respondent: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Question referred

Must Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national rules, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which an employment permit is required for the posting of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 96/71/EC (1)?


(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).
Case T-527/09: Action brought on 6 April 2010 — Ayadi v Commission
Date: 2010-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Afghanistan, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence, terrorism








C_2010148EN.01003102.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/31





Action brought on 6 April 2010 — Ayadi v Commission
(Case T-527/09)
2010/C 148/56
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H. Miller Solicitor, B. Emmerson and S. Cox, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Regulation No 954/2009, in so far as it applies to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
First, the applicant submits that the Commission misused its power by including the applicant in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 without having carefully and impartially examined all the relevant elements of the applicant’s case.
Second, the applicant claims that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the applicant’s right to effective judicial review since the regulation lacked of evidential basis and, in consequence, the Court is unable even to begin to exercise its duty of considering that evidence.
Third, the applicant argues that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the applicant’s right of defence. He submits that the Commission failed to provide a statement of evidence but only provided the allegations in the Sanctions Committee statement. Without the evidence, the applicant was unable to address the Commission on defects in that evidence or misunderstandings.
Fourth, he claims that the contested regulation, freezing the applicant’s assets both retrospectively and, for an indefinite period, prospectively, constitutes an unjustified restriction on his fundamental right of property.