do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-113/10: Action brought on 2 November 2010 — AT v EACEA
Date: 2010-11-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EU financing, action for annulment (EU), pay, termination of a contract, work contract








C_2011072EN.01003501.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/35





Action brought on 2 November 2010 — AT v EACEA
(Case F-113/10)
2011/C 72/56
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AT (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for, first, annulment of the applicant’s career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 June to 31 December 2008; second, annulment of the contracting authority’s decision to terminate the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract before its due date, and, third, compensation for the damage suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the applicant’s CDR for 2008, as adopted by the contracting authority’s decision of 29 October 2009;










—


annul the contracting authority’s decision of 12 February 2010 by which it terminated the applicant’s contract of employment; and, in so far as necessary,










—


annul the contracting authority’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaints against his CDR for 2008 and the decision to terminate his contract; order the EACEA to pay an amount which should be no less than the amount of the applicant’s salary (and all the benefits provided for in the CEOS), calculated from the date on which the applicant’s employment ended on 12 February 2010 until the date of reinstatement within the agency as a result of the annulment of the decision to terminate his employment, by way of compensation for professional and financial damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;










—


order the EACEA to pay a sum fixed provisionally at EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for physical damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;










—


order the EACEA to pay a sum fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;










—


in any event, order the EACEA to pay a sum fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that a reasonable period was exceeded in preparing the CDR for 2008, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;










—


order the EACEA to pay the costs.
Case C-517/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2010 — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado
Date: 2010-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, interpretation of the law, interprofessional agreement, national implementing measure, professional association, public administration








C_2011030EN.01001702.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2010 — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado
(Case C-517/10)
()
2011/C 30/28
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: María Luisa Gómez Cueto

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred







1.


Is Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 applicable to staff of the public authorities who, by their administrative-law relationship with those authorities, have the status of civil servants?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is a national law which does not provide for a rule implementing Directive 1999/70/EC to have retroactive effect from the date by which the Directive was to be transposed into domestic law contrary to Community law?






(1)  concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p.43).
Case C-518/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 November 2010 — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents
Date: 2010-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, interpretation of the law, offence, patent








C_2011013EN.01002102.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 November 2010 — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents
(Case C-518/10)
()
2011/C 13/39
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

Question referred

If the criteria for deciding whether a product is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ under Article 3(a) o the Regulation (1) include or consist of an assessment of whether the supply of the product would infringe the basic patent, does it make any difference to the analysis if infringement is by way of indirect or contributory infringement based on Article 26 of the Community Patent Convention, enacted as s60(2) Patents Act 1977 in the UK, and the corresponding provisions in the laws of other Member States of the Community?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
OJ L 152, p. 1
Case F-112/10: Action brought on 2 November 2010 — Trentea v FRA
Date: 2010-11-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: action for annulment, indemnification, professional career, recruitment








C_2011013EN.01004303.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/43





Action brought on 2 November 2010 — Trentea v FRA
(Case F-112/10)
()
2011/C 13/88
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cornelia Trentea (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Levi and M.Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment rejecting the Appellant's candidature for a post of administrative assistant in the procurement and finance fields and of the decision appointing another candidate. Second, compensation for material and non-material loss.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 5 June 2010 rejecting the Appellant's candidature for post (ref. TAADMIN-AST4-2009) and the Decision appointing another candidate;










—


If necessary, annul the Decision of 22 July 2010 rejecting the Appellant's complaint and of the Decision of 27 September 2010 rejecting the Appellant's Request for review and Completion to the Complaint;










—


Order that the Defendant compensates the Appellant's material prejudice corresponding to the difference between her current salary and the AST4 salary, until retirement age, including all allocations and indemnities and compensation of pension rights;










—


Order that the Defendant compensates the Appellant's moral prejudice evaluated ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euro;










—


order that the Defendant pays all costs.
Case C-514/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2010 — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v Sewar spol. s r. o.
Date: 2010-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, EU law - national law, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law








C_2011013EN.01002003.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2010 — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v Sewar spol. s r. o.
(Case C-514/10)
()
2011/C 13/37
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH

Respondent: Sewar spol. s r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that for that regulation to take effect it is necessary that at the time of delivery of a judgment the regulation was in force both in the State whose court delivered the judgment and in the State in which a party seeks to have that judgment recognised and enforced?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.