do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-340/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, action for annulment, award of contract, civil liability, invitation to tender, provision of services, telecommunications industry








C_2010288EN.01004801.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/48






Action brought on 20 August 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice
(Case T-340/10)
()
(2010/C 288/91)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Computer Task Group PSF SA Luxembourg (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, lawyer)

Defendants: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


order the joining of the present case with the case pending before the Eighth Chamber of the General Court under Case T-170/10;










—


annul the decision the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010 to award the contract ‘AO 008/2009: 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’ to another tenderer;










—


declare the non-contractual liability of the European Union and order the Court of Justice to compensate the applicant for all the loss incurred on account of the contested decisions and appoint an expert to evaluate that loss;










—


order the Court of Justice to pay all the costs and expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and arguments put froward by the applicant are identical to those put forward in Case T-170/10 CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice (1) concerning the same tendering procedure.


(1)  OJ 2010 C 161, p. 48.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 751/2010 of 20 August 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisse de Morteau or Jésus de Morteau (PGI))
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, designation of origin, location of production, meat product, product designation








L_2010220EN.01005701.xml










21.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 220/57








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 751/2010
of 20 August 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisse de Morteau or Jésus de Morteau (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Saucisse de Morteau’ or ‘Jésus de Morteau’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 August 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 315, 23.12.2009, p. 12.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

FRANCE
Saucisse de Morteau or Jésus de Morteau (PGI)
Case C-415/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2010 — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, employment policy, equal treatment, gender equality, interpretation of the law, social policy








C_2010301EN.01001002.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2010 — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH
(Case C-415/10)
()
2010/C 301/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Galina Meister

Defendant: Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (1) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a worker shows that he meets the requirements for a post advertised by an employer, he has a right vis-à-vis that employer, if he does not obtain the post, to information as to whether the employer has engaged another applicant and, if so, as to the criteria on the basis of which that appointment has been made?










2.


If the answer to the first question is affirmative:
Where the employer does not disclose the requested information, does that fact give rise to a presumption that the discrimination alleged by the worker exists?






(1)  OJ L 204, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 180, p. 22.

(3)  OJ L 303, p. 16.
Case T-344/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EC opinion, Germany, State aid, action for annulment, control of State aid








C_2010288EN.01005001.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/50






Action brought on 20 August 2010 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-344/10)
()
(2010/C 288/94)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany), (represented by: T.R. Ottervanger and E.V.A. Henny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position in case C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — Germany/Deutsche Post; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, a declaration that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position in case C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) — Germany/Deutsche Post ((OJ 2007 C 245, p. 21).
In support of their action, the applicants submit that since the Commission has not defined its position in the above mentioned investigation procedure within a reasonable time period, it has breached Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1).
In addition, by failing to define its position within a reasonable time period, the Commission has also breached the principles of good administration and legal certainty. According to the applicants, the principle of sound administration should have been respected since it is one of the general principles common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States. Moreover, this principle is clearly reflected in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
Decision to close the formal investigation procedure after withdrawal by Member State — State aid — Portugal (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) — Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification — State aid C 55/06 (ex N 42/05) — Interest subsidies for loans granted to undertakings of the fisheries sector — Portugal  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, fishing industry








C_2010225EN.01000601.xml










20.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/6





DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE
State aid — Portugal
(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification
State aid C 55/06 (ex N 42/05) — Interest subsidies for loans granted to undertakings of the fisheries sector — Portugal
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 225/06
The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 20 December 2006 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Portugal has withdrawn its notification on 15 June 2010 and will not pursue this aid project further.


(1)  OJ C 72, 29.3.2007, p. 52.
Case T-341/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, foreign national, sport








C_2010301EN.01003201.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/32





Action brought on 20 August 2010 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission
(Case T-341/10)
()
2010/C 301/55
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: F91 Diddeléng (Dudelange, Luxembourg), Julien Bonnetaud (Yutz, France), Thomas Gruszczynski (Amnéville, France), Rainer Hauck (Maxdorf, Allemagne), Stéphane Martine (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Grégory Molnar (Moyeuvre-Grande, France) and Yann Thibout (Algrange, France) (represented by: L. Misson, C. Delrée and G. Ernes, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision of the European Commission, adopted on 3 June 2010;










—


Annul the rules which are contrary to Articles 45 and 101 TFEU;










—


Impose any appropriate sanction.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (Dudelange football club and the non-Luxembourg players employed by that club) seek annulment of the Commission decision of 3 June 2010, communicated by letter of 21 June 2010, in which the Commission informed the applicants that it intended to take no action in regard to their complaint against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), based on Articles 45 and 101 TFEU, concerning the FLF rules preventing the applicants from taking part in certain football matches if the number of foreign players appearing on the match sheet is greater than a number laid down in the FLF rules;
In support of their action, the applicants put forward two pleas in law alleging:






—


an infringement of Article 45 TFEU, inasmuch as the obligation currently laid down in the FLF rules to place, on the official match sheet, seven players who had obtained their first licence in Luxembourg and the prohibition on placing, on the same match sheet, more than four players transferred during the sporting year constitutes direct discrimination preventing a national of a Member State from exercising an economic activity in Luxembourg territory. The applicants also claim that, in so far as the FLF rules constitute, not direct discrimination, but indirect discrimination, the objectives invoked by the FLF, namely, that its purpose is to promote the game of football as an amateur sport, are unfounded and cannot therefore be regarded as legitimate objectives. The restrictions are therefore disproportionate compared to the objective invoked.










—


an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, inasmuch as the FLF must be regarded as an association of undertakings infringing competition law, and more particularly, Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the restrictions on the number of foreign players have economic consequences for professional sportsmen and adversely affect competition between Luxembourg football clubs.
Case F-68/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — Behnke v Commission
Date: 2010-08-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment, indemnification








C_2010288EN.01007403.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/74






Action brought on 20 August 2010 — Behnke v Commission
(Case F-68/10)
()
(2010/C 288/141)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Thorsten Behnke (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to place the applicant in Performance Group II and to award him 5 promotion points for his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision to place the applicant in Performance Group II and to award him 5 promotion points for his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008;










—


In the alternative, declare Article 8(4) of the general implementing provisions relating to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations unlawful, in so far as it allows the Joint Committee on Evaluation and Promotions to adopt an opinion by consensus;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.