do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-286/09 and C-287/09: Order of the Court of 9 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)) — Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Officials — Retirement pension — Cumulation of periods of insurance — Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Taking account of periods of activity within the European Communities — Article 10 EC)
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, Italy, interpretation of the law, social security, social-security benefit, social-security contribution








C_2010288EN.01001401.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/14






Order of the Court of 9 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)) — Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
(Joined Cases C-286/09 and C-287/09) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Officials - Retirement pension - Cumulation of periods of insurance - Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Taking account of periods of activity within the European Communities - Article 10 EC)
(2010/C 288/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Luigi Ricci (C-286/09), Aduo Pisaneschi (C-287/09)

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Roma — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community — Interpretation of Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC — Old-age pension — Aggregation of insurance periods — Failure to take into account the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities

Operative part of the order

Article 10 EC, together with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not permit account to be taken of years worked by a European Union citizen in a European Union institution, such as the Commission of the European Communities, or in a European Union body, such as the Economic and Social Committee, with regard to the establishment of a right to a retirement pension under the national scheme, regardless of whether the person involved takes early retirement or retires at the usual age.


(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
Extract from the decision concerning Landsbanki Luxembourg SA pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Luxembourg, credit institution, liquidation








C_2010185EN.01001401.xml










9.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/14





Extract from the decision concerning Landsbanki Luxembourg SA pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions
2010/C 185/07
By judgment of 21 June 2010, the 15th Chamber of the Tribunal d’arrondissement de et à Luxembourg (District Court of Luxembourg), sitting in commercial matters, modified the way in which Landsbanki Luxembourg SA, 2-4, rue Beck, 1222 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG, No RC B78804, is to be wound up, as follows:
The lists with the claims which are periodically admissible will be deposited at the registry of the Fifteenth Chamber of the Tribunal d’arrondissement de et à Luxembourg from the 15th to the 25th day of each month of 2010 for inspection by creditors, who may submit an objection as specifically provided for in the operative part of the judgment of 12 December 2008.
The court ordered the provisional enforcement of this judgment notwithstanding any legal remedy.
The court ordered the publication of the partial text of the judgment in Mémorial C, special reports of companies and associations, the Official Journal of the European Union, and the newspapers Luxemburger Wort, Tageblatt, Financial Times, Le Monde, El Pais and Morgan Blaðið, within eight days of its delivery, in accordance with Article 61(12) of the Amended Law on the financial sector.



On behalf of the judicial authorities winding up Landsbanki Luxembourg SA

Yvette HAMILIUS
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5875 — Lactalis/Puleva Dairy)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dairy production, distributive trades, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, milk product








C_2010185EN.01001701.xml










9.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5875 — Lactalis/Puleva Dairy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 185/10






1.


On 2 July 2010 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Groupe Lactalis (‘Lactalis’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Puleva Dairy (‘Puleva Dairy’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking Lactalis: production and sale of dairy products,










—


for undertaking Puleva Dairy: production and sale of dairy products.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5875 — Lactalis/Puleva Dairy, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Case F-54/10: Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Verheyden v Commission
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, Italy, action for annulment, damages, equal treatment, indemnification








C_2010246EN.01004301.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/43





Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Verheyden v Commission
(Case F-54/10)
()
2010/C 246/75
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Luc Verheyden (Angera, Italy) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for the same treatment as that accorded to the applicants in Cases F-5/05 and F-7/05

Form of order sought







—


Annul the implied decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 16 July 2009;










—


Annul, in so far as necessary, the express decision of 29 March 2010 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on 28 December 2009;










—


Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3 000 in compensation;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services  (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, air transport, airline, disclosure of information, inland transport, public service, transport regulations








C_2010185EN.01001501.xml










9.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/15





Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 185/08






Member State


United Kingdom




Concerned route


Cardiff–RAF Valley, Anglesey




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


Date of publication of this notice




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained







Deborah Paramore




Transport Policy




Welsh Assembly Government




Cathays Park




Cardiff




CF10 3NQ




UNITED KINGDOM




Tel. +44 2920826578




E-mail: deborah.paramore@wales.gsi.gov.uk
Case T-430/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Grain Millers v OHIM — Grain Millers (GRAIN MILLERS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GRAIN MILLERS — Earlier national business name Grain Millers and its figurative representation — Partial refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), quality label, seed








C_2010234EN.01003401.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/34





Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Grain Millers v OHIM — Grain Millers (GRAIN MILLERS)
(Case T-430/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GRAIN MILLERS - Earlier national business name Grain Millers and its figurative representation - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 234/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grain Millers, Inc. (Eden Prairie, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (R. Böckenholt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 478/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG and Grain Millers, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Grain Millers, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Case C-348/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 July 2010 — SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom v Ludzas novada dome
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, award of contract, postal service, preliminary issue, transport policy, water








C_2010246EN.01003202.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 July 2010 — SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom v Ludzas novada dome
(Case C-348/10)
()
2010/C 246/54
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom

Defendant: Ludzas novada dome

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to treat as a public service concession a contract under which the successful tenderer is granted the right to provide public bus services, in cases where part of the consideration consists in the right to operate the public transport services but where, at the same time, the contracting authority compensates the service provider for losses arising as a result of the provision of services, and in addition the public law provisions governing the provision of the service and the contractual provisions limit the risk associated with operation of the service?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, has Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) been directly applicable in Latvia since 21 December 2009?










3.


If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC be interpreted as being applicable to public contracts entered into before the end of the period prescribed for domestic law to be brought into conformity with Directive 2007/66/EC?






(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).
Case T-177/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Preferential electricity tariffs — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, electrical energy, tariff preference








C_2010234EN.01003802.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/38





Order of the President of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
(Case T-177/10 R)
(Interim measures - State aid - Preferential electricity tariffs - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
2010/C 234/69
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold and F. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission decision C(2009) 8112 final of 19 November 2009 on the State aid C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case F-56/10: Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Hecq v Commission
Date: 2010-07-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, European official, action for annulment, health expenditure, pharmaceutical expenses, redemption








C_2010246EN.01004303.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/43





Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Hecq v Commission
(Case F-56/10)
()
2010/C 246/77
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing the full reimbursement of certain medical fees and expenses.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision adopted on 20 October 2009 by the Brussels settlements office of the Sickness Insurance Fund, in the form of a breakdown of expenses No 171, refusing the applicant full reimbursement for four consultations with a general practitioner, on 17 February, 2 April, 23 April and 11 May 2009, two consultations with a specialist, on 6 April and 15 June 2009, and two purchases of medicines prescribed by the psychiatrist Vandenborre, on 22 June and 22 September 2009;










—


annul, so far as necessary, the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 13 April 2010 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint brought on 20 January 2010 against the decision of 20 October 2009;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.