do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-41/10: Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, European official, action by staff, indemnification, termination of employment








C_2010209EN.01005502.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/55





Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
(Case F-41/10)
()
2010/C 209/88
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of several decisions terminating the applicant’s service as the Head of Unit of the Legal Service with immediate effect, reassigning him to the Directorate for Logistics and refusing his formal application for assistance and the application for damages.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of the President of the EESC No 88/10 A of 3 March 2010 rejecting the application brought by the applicant on 7 December 2009 and deciding to reassign him;










—


annul the Addendum to Decision No 88/10 of 25 March 2010;










—


annul Decision No 133/10 A of 24 March 2010 terminating the applicant’s service as Head of Unit of the Legal Service with immediate effect and his reassignation as Head of Unit, with his post, to another department from 6 April 2010;










—


annul the decision of the President of the EESC No 184/10 A of 13 April 2010 reassigning the applicant to the Directorate for Logistics, that decision taking effect on 6 April 2010;










—


grant the applicant damages;










—


order the EESC to pay the costs.
Case T-262/10: Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: adjuvant, chemical product, food safety, foodstuff, health risk, marketing, packaging product, plastics, public health








C_2010221EN.01005101.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/51





Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission
(Case T-262/10)
()
2010/C 221/82
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Microban International Ltd. (Huntersville, United States) and Microban (Europe) Ltd. (Heath Hayes, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. S. Rydelski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision No 2010/169 of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4-’trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25); and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision No 2010/169 of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4-’trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (1) (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25), notified under document C(2010) 1613.
In support of its submissions, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:






 


Firstly, that the contested Decision is not in accordance with the authorisation procedure under the framework Regulation (2) as it lacks an adequate legal basis for its adoption.










 


Secondly, the Decision adopted by the defendant not to include the product concerned in the Union list of additives without a risk management decision, solely based on the withdrawal of the original application for authorisation, is in breach of the authorisation procedure for the product concerned.










 


Thirdly, the defendant violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations by not providing for the opportunity to replace the original applicant for the product concerned.










 


Finally, the procedure leading up to the contested Decision was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principles of sound administration, transparency and legal certainty.






(1)  Commission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (OJ 2002 L 220, p. 18)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (OJ 2004 L 338, p. 4).
Case C-284/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Telefónica de España, S.A. v Administración del Estado
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, competition, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, principle of subsidiarity, right of establishment, telecommunications, trade licence








C_2010246EN.01001901.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Telefónica de España, S.A. v Administración del Estado
(Case C-284/10)
()
2010/C 246/32
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telefónica de España, S.A

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Question referred

Does Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services and, in particular, Article 6 thereof, permit Member States to charge holders of general authorisations an annual fee which is calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income invoiced in the relevant year, subject to such amount not exceeding two per thousand, and which is applied for the purpose of defraying the costs, including management costs, incurred by the telecommunications regulatory body in the implementation of the scheme of licences and general authorisations, as provided for in Article 71 of Law 11/1998 of 24 April 1998 on telecommunications?


(1)  OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.
Case F-40/10: Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, paid leave








C_2010209EN.01005501.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/55





Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
(Case F-40/10)
()
2010/C 209/87
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision stating that the applicant exceeded his annual leave entitlement without authorisation by 5,5 days in 2009.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of 11 August 2009, by which the General Director of Eurostat gave instructions to his Human Resource Management unit to inform the competent departments of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements that the applicant had exceeded his annual leave entitlement by 5,5 days in 2009, to cause him to lose his remuneration for that period;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 495/2010 of 7 June 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit








L_2010140EN.01002101.xml










8.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 140/21








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 495/2010
of 7 June 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 8 June 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 June 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 


MA 


44,4 




MK 


61,5 




TN 


92,7 




TR 


78,2 




ZZ 


69,2 




0707 00 05 


MA 


37,3 




MK 


33,9 




TR 


123,5 




ZZ 


64,9 




0709 90 70 


TR 


106,2 




ZZ 


106,2 




0805 50 10 


AR 


88,8 




BR 


112,1 




TR 


96,8 




ZA 


101,5 




ZZ 


99,8 




0808 10 80 


AR 


119,5 




BR 


81,2 




CA 


103,3 




CL 


87,5 




CN 


87,6 




IL 


49,0 




NZ 


115,5 




US 


124,4 




UY 


116,3 




ZA 


85,2 




ZZ 


97,0 




0809 10 00 


TN 


380,0 




TR 


190,9 




ZZ 


285,5 




0809 20 95 


TR 


499,6 




US 


573,0 




ZZ 


536,3 






(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-285/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A. v Administración del Estado
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2010246EN.01002001.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A. v Administración del Estado
(Case C-285/10)
()
2010/C 246/33
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A.

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Question referred

Did the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 permit Member States to enact legislation whereby, for transactions between connected parties where the price was patently lower than the open market value, the taxable amount was other than that determined by Article 11A.(1)(a) to be generally applicable — namely, the consideration — by extending the scope of the rules on application of goods and services for private use (as was done by Article 79(5) of the Law on VAT, before its amendment by Law 36/2006 of 29 November), when the specific procedure provided for in Article 27 of the Sixth Directive to obtain authorisation for derogation from the general rule was not followed, such derogation being obtained by Spain only after the Council Decision of 15 May 2006?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Case C-283/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București) v Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — U.C.M.R. — A.D.A.
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, copyright, information society, interpretation of the law








C_2010234EN.01002501.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București) v Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — U.C.M.R. — A.D.A.
(Case C-283/10)
()
2010/C 234/40
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București)

Defendant: Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — U.C.M.R. — A.D.A.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 to be interpreted to the effect that ‘communication to the public’ means:






(a)


exclusively communication to the public where the public is not present at the place where the communication originates, or










(b)


also any other communication of a work which is carried out directly in a place open to the public using any means of public performance or direct presentation of the work?




In the event that point (a) represents the correct meaning, does that mean that the acts, referred to in point (b), by which works are communicated directly to the public do not fall within the scope of that directive or that they do not constitute communication of a work to the public, but rather the public performance of a work, within the meaning of Article 11(1)(i) of the Berne Convention?
In the event that point (b) represents the correct meaning, does Article 3(1) of the directive permit Member States to make statutory provision for the compulsory collective management of the right to communicate musical works to the public, irrespective of the means of communication used, even though that right can be and is managed individually by authors, no provision being made for authors to be able to exclude their works from collective management?


(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
Case T-500/07: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2010 — Bulgaria v Commission
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bulgaria, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2010209EN.01005102.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/51





Order of the General Court of 7 June 2010 — Bulgaria v Commission
(Case T-500/07) (1)

()
2010/C 209/77
Language of the case: Bulgarian
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
Case C-282/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Prefect of the Centre region
Date: 2010-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, labour law, paid leave, sick leave








C_2010234EN.01002401.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Prefect of the Centre region
(Case C-282/10)
()
2010/C 234/39
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maribel Dominguez

Defendants: Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Prefect of the Centre region

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum of ten days’ (or one month’s) actual work during the reference period?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC, which imposes a specific obligation on an employer in so far as it creates entitlement to paid leave for a worker who is absent on health grounds for a period of one year or more, require a national court hearing proceedings between individuals to disregard a conflicting national provision which makes entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on at least ten days’ actual work during the reference year?










3.


Since Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC does not distinguish between workers according to whether their absence from work during the reference period is due to a work-related accident, an occupational disease, an accident on the journey to or from work or a non-occupational disease, are workers entitled, under that directive, to paid leave of the same length whatever the reason for their absence on health grounds, or must that directive be interpreted as not precluding the length of paid leave differing according to the reason for the worker’s absence, since national law provides in certain circumstances for the length of paid annual leave to exceed the minimum of four weeks provided for by the directive?






(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 2003 L 299, p. 9).