do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-439/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Fulmen v Council
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Iran, action for annulment, human rights, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2010328EN.01003401.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/34





Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Fulmen v Council
(Case T-439/10)
()
2010/C 328/58
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fulmen (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Kronshagen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul point 11 of Section I B of the annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and the Council's decision of 26 July 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, (1) and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, in so far as the applicant's name has been placed on the list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen pursuant to that provision.
In support of its action the applicant submits that the contested Council decision should be annulled since there is no relevant decision of a competent authority justifying, at the time of its adoption, the inclusion of the applicant on the list of organisations involved in Iran's nuclear or ballistic missiles activities.
The applicant also alleges an infringement of procedural guarantees in that its rights of defence and its right to a fair hearing have been infringed in so far as:






—


the Council did not sufficiently reason its decision to include the applicant's name on the contested list;










—


the factors held against the applicant were not communicated prior to the Council's decision; and










—


the applicant was not provided with the opportunity to effectively express its point of view on those factors.






(1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).
Case F-81/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Praskevicius v Parliament
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment, damage, indemnification








C_2010301EN.01006602.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/66





Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Praskevicius v Parliament
(Case F-81/10)
()
2010/C 301/108
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vidas Praskevicius (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for 2009 and [rejection] of the claim for non-material damage.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 June 2010 rejecting the applicant’s claim;










—


annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 24 November 2009, notified on 2 December 2009, not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for 2009;










—


inform the Appointing Authority of the effects of annulment of the contested decisions, in particular classification in grade AD6 and the retroactivity of promotion to grade AD6 from the date on which it should have become effective, that is to say, 1 January 2009;










—


grant the applicant EUR 500 in respect of compensation for non-material damage;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Case F-87/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Adriaens and Others v Commission
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, indemnification, pay








C_2011013EN.01004001.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/40





Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Adriaens and Others v Commission
(Case F-87/10)
()
2011/C 13/78
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Stéphane Adriaens (Evere, Belgium) and Others (represented by: Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision, contained in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit their salary adjustment, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision in so far as it sets the rate of salary adjustment at 1,85 %, applying Regulation No 1296/2009, adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants and the correction coefficients applied thereto;










—


Grant to the applicants backdated interest, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, payable on the total sums corresponding to the difference between the salary specified in the pay slips dating from January 2010 and the adjusted pay slips for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary to which they would have been entitled, until the date of the late adjustment of those salaries:










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case F-86/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Dubus v Parliament
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action by staff, civil servant, personnel administration, promotion








C_2010317EN.01004903.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/49





Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Dubus v Parliament
(Case F-86/10)
()
2010/C 317/89
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Charles Dubus (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year.

Forms of order sought







—


Annul the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year;










—


in consequence of such annulment, carry out a fresh comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and other candidates for the 2009 promotions year and promote the applicant to grade AST4 with retrospective effect from 1 January 2009; interest on arrears of remuneration as from 1 January 2009 at two points above the European Central Bank rate for main refinancing operations;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Case T-498/09 P: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2010 — Kerstens v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion year — Award of priority points — Burden of proof — Rights of the defence — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, personnel administration, staff assessment








C_2010317EN.01003202.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/32





Order of the General Court of 24 September 2010 — Kerstens v Commission
(Case T-498/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion year - Award of priority points - Burden of proof - Rights of the defence - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
2010/C 317/59
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 in Case F-102/07 Kerstens v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and I-A-2-0000, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Petrus Kerstens is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010257EN.01000101.xml










24.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 September 2010
2010/C 257/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3323




JPY


Japanese yen


112,49




DKK


Danish krone


7,4496




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85050




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2054




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3138




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,9195




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,624




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


280,85




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9764




RON


Romanian leu


4,2670




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9861




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4058




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3795




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3376




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8313




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7704




KRW


South Korean won


1 537,65




ZAR


South African rand


9,4350




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9369




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2890




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 940,92




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1241




PHP


Philippine peso


58,779




RUB


Russian rouble


41,3557




THB


Thai baht


40,922




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2971




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8776




INR


Indian rupee


60,7355






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-440/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Mahmoudian v Council
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Iran, action for annulment, human rights, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2010328EN.01003402.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/34





Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Mahmoudian v Council
(Case T-440/10)
()
2010/C 328/59
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Kronshagen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul point 2 of Section I A of the annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and the Council's decision of 26 July 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, (1) and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, in so far as the applicant's name has been placed on the list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen pursuant to that provision.
The pleas in law and arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-439/10 Fulmen v Council, concerning the company of which the applicant is the managing director.


(1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 846/2010 of 24 September 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit








L_2010251EN.01000301.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 251/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 846/2010
of 24 September 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 25 September 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 September 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 


82,9 




MK 


47,2 




TR 


50,2 




XS 


58,9 




ZZ 


59,8 




0707 00 05 


TR 


127,9 




ZZ 


127,9 




0709 90 70 


TR 


116,5 




ZZ 


116,5 




0805 50 10 


AR 


100,5 




CL 


118,6 




IL 


127,5 




TR 


104,9 




UY 


139,0 




ZA 


106,2 




ZZ 


116,1 




0806 10 10 


TR 


120,9 




ZZ 


120,9 




0808 10 80 


AR 


63,5 




BR 


68,3 




CL 


91,6 




NZ 


103,2 




US 


128,5 




ZA 


92,8 




ZZ 


91,3 




0808 20 50 


CN 


54,1 




ZA 


88,6 




ZZ 


71,4 




0809 30 


TR 


149,8 




ZZ 


149,8 




0809 40 05 


BA 


53,5 




MK 


45,0 




ZZ 


49,3 






(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’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5919 — Apollo/Alcan) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, energy industry, exchange of information, financial management, merger control








C_2010257EN.01000201.xml










24.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5919 — Apollo/Alcan)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 257/02






1.


On 16 September 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 undertaking Apollo Group (‘Apollo’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the aluminium business of Alcan Engineered Products (‘Alcan’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Apollo: portfolio investments,










—


for Alcan: production and sale of rolled and extruded aluminium and related products.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5919 — Apollo/Alcan, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-541/09: Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese — Italy) — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Varese
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal nutrition, cosmetic product, distributive trades, food inspection, foodstuff, health risk, interpretation of the law, labelling, liability








C_2010346EN.01003805.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/38





Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese — Italy) — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Varese
(Case C-541/09) (1)

()
2010/C 346/71
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
Case C-464/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2010 — Belgian State v Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, VAT, harmonisation of standards, interpretation of the law, tax








C_2010346EN.01003001.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2010 — Belgian State v Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)
(Case C-464/10)
()
2010/C 346/49
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgian State

Defendants: Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

Question referred

Must Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, be interpreted as precluding tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in Article 13(B)(f)?
Case T-450/10 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case F-91/09, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2010-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, action by staff, health expenditure, health insurance, redemption








C_2010317EN.01004502.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/45





Appeal brought on 24 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case F-91/09, Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-450/10 P)
()
2010/C 317/80
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.










—


Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible.










—


Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.










—


Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.










—


In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 9 July 2010. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly unfounded an action which sought primarily compensation for damage which the appellant claims to have suffered as a result of a request sent to him to undergo certain medical examinations necessary for the purpose of any assessment as to his invalidity.
In support of his claims, the appellant submits that no reasons are stated whatsoever in the order under appeal in support of the findings relating to the alleged inadmissibility of the claim for damages.
The appellant also alleges unreasonable misinterpretation and misapplication Article 270 TFEU, Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the principles of legal certainty, the right to judicial protection, the hierarchy of sources of law, the separation of powers and of the principle that the court is subject to the law.