do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-137/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Marc Michel Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht (Freedom to provide services — Free movement of goods — Principle of non-discrimination — Measure adopted by a local public authority which restricts access to coffee-shops to Netherlands residents — Marketing of ‘soft’ drugs — Marketing of non-alcoholic beverages and of food — Objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance — Public order — Protection of public health — Coherence — Proportionality)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, drug addiction, drug traffic, equal treatment, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, provision of services








C_2011055EN.01000602.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Marc Michel Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht
(Case C-137/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of goods - Principle of non-discrimination - Measure adopted by a local public authority which restricts access to coffee-shops to Netherlands residents - Marketing of ‘soft’ drugs - Marketing of non-alcoholic beverages and of food - Objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance - Public order - Protection of public health - Coherence - Proportionality)
2011/C 55/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marc Michel Josemans

Defendant: Burgemeester van Maastricht

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 29 EC and 49 EC — Drug tourism — General municipal regulation prohibiting the admission of non-residents to coffee-shops selling narcotic drugs — Public order — Different treatment

Operative part of the judgment







1.


In the course of marketing narcotic drugs which are not distributed through channels strictly controlled by the competent authorities with a view to use for medical or scientific purposes, a coffee-shop proprietor may not rely on Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 29 EC or 49 EC to object to municipal rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the admission of persons who are non-resident in the Netherlands to such establishments. As regards the activity of marketing non-alcoholic beverages and food in those establishments, Article 49 EC et seq. may be relied on by such a proprietor.










2.


Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services laid down by the EC Treaty. That restriction is, however, justified by the objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance.






(1)  OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.
Case T-276/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Martin v Parliament (Rules concerning expenses and allowances for Members of the European Parliament — Recovery of sums wrongly paid)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses








C_2011038EN.01001001.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/10





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Martin v Parliament
(Case T-276/07) (1)

(Rules concerning expenses and allowances for Members of the European Parliament - Recovery of sums wrongly paid)
2011/C 38/13
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Peter Martin (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: É. Boigelot, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by H. Krück, D. Moore and C. Karamarcos, and subsequently by H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 10 May 2007 and, if necessary, the debit note of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, and, where applicable, any decision implementing the aforementioned measures which might arise in the course of the proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Mr Hans-Peter Martin to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.
Case C-593/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, appeal, fight against crime, infringement of EU law, miscarriage of justice, terrorism








C_2011072EN.01000902.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/9





Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
(Case C-593/10 P)
2011/C 72/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, European Commission, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-85/09;










—


Dismiss the respondent's application for the annulment of Commission Regulation 1190/2008 (1) in so far as it concerns him, as unfounded;










—


Order the respondent to bear the costs of proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By this Appeal the Council seeks to challenge several determinations of the General Court. The Council argues that:






—


The General Court erred in law in considering that the Contested Regulation did not benefit from an immunity of jurisdiction;




In the alternative, the Council argues that:






—


The General Court misconstrued and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in considering that the review to be carried out should be ‘full and rigorous’ and in requiring the transmission of underlying evidence to the designated person or entity as well as to the Union judicature in order to ensure respect for that person or entity's rights of defence; and










—


The General Court erred in law in failing to give due regard to the creation by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009) of the Office of the Ombudsperson.






(1)  OJ L 322, p. 25
2010/781/EU: Commission Decision of 16 December 2010 amending Council Directive 92/34/EEC to extend the derogation relating to import conditions for fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production from third countries (notified under document C(2010) 9015)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fruit, marketing, plant health control, plant propagation, seedling








L_2010333EN.01006101.xml










17.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 333/61








            COMMISSION DECISION
         
of 16 December 2010
         
amending Council Directive 92/34/EEC to extend the derogation relating to import conditions for fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production from third countries
(notified under document C(2010) 9015)
(2010/781/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Directive 92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants, intended for fruit production (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission is required pursuant to Article 16(1) of Directive 92/34/EEC to decide whether fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants produced in a third country and affording the same guarantees as regards obligations on the supplier, identity, characteristics, plant health, growing medium, packaging, inspection arrangements, marking and sealing are equivalent in all these respects to fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants produced in the Union and complying with the requirements and conditions of that Directive.












(2)


However, the information presently available on the conditions applying in third countries is still not sufficient to enable the Commission to adopt any such decision in respect of any third country at this stage.












(3)


In order to prevent trade patterns from being disrupted, Member States importing fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants from third countries should continue to be allowed to apply conditions equivalent to those applicable to similar Union products in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 92/34/EEC.












(4)


The period of application of the derogation provided for in Directive 92/34/EEC for such imports should consequently be extended until 29 September 2012.












(5)


Directive 92/34/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(6)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In the first subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 92/34/EEC, the date ‘31 December 2010’ is replaced by ‘29 September 2012’.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 16 December 2010.


For the Commission

John DALLI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 157, 10.6.1992, p. 10.
Case C-89/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Public health — Operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories — National legislation under which no more than 25 % of own capital may be held by shareholders who are not professional biologists — Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories — Objective of ensuring the professional independence of biologists — Objective of maintaining diversity of supply in the biomedical field — Consistency — Proportionality)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, market-sharing agreement, medical diagnosis, research body








C_2011055EN.01000501.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-89/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Public health - Operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories - National legislation under which no more than 25 % of own capital may be held by shareholders who are not professional biologists - Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories - Objective of ensuring the professional independence of biologists - Objective of maintaining diversity of supply in the biomedical field - Consistency - Proportionality)
2011/C 55/07
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Rules concerning the operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories — National legislation under which no more than 25 % of a company’s capital may be held by shareholders not engaged in the relevant professional activity — Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories — Restrictions on freedom of establishment which may be justified by the objective of protection of public health and are proportionate

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by prohibiting biologists from holding shares in more than two companies formed in order to operate jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 16.05.2009.
Case T-191/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission (Customs Union — Importation of compact fluorescent lamps with integrated electronic ballasts (CFL-i) from Pakistan — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European Community, action for annulment (EU), customs, customs duties








C_2011038EN.01001301.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/13





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission
(Case T-191/09) (1)

(Customs Union - Importation of compact fluorescent lamps with integrated electronic ballasts (CFL-i) from Pakistan - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)
2011/C 38/21
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: HIT Trading BV (Lelystad, Netherlands); and Berkman Forwarding BV (Barendrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A.T.M. Jansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Bouyon and H. van Vliet, Agents, assisted by Y. van Gerven, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 747 final of 12 February 2009, stating that the post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (File reference: REC 01/08).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Hit Trading BV and Berkman Forwarding BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 180 of 1.8.2009
List of natural mineral waters recognised by Iceland and Norway (Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 28, 4.2.2010, p. 24 , and EEA Supplement No 5, 4.2.2010 , p. 1)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Norway, marketing, mineral water, preparation for market








C_2010341EN.01003901.xml










16.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/39





List of natural mineral waters recognised by Iceland and Norway

(Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 28, 4.2.2010, p. 24, and EEA Supplement No 5, 4.2.2010, p. 1)

2010/C 341/09
In accordance with Article 1 of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (1), as incorporated in point 54zzzzd of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, a list of recognised natural mineral waters shall be published.

List of natural mineral waters recognised by Iceland








Trade Name


Name of source


Place of exploitation




Icelandic Glacial


Ölfus Spring


Hlíðarendi, Ölfus, Selfoss








List of natural mineral waters recognised by Norway








Trade Name


Name of source


Place of exploitation




Best naturlig mineralvann


Kastbrekka


Kambrekka/Trondheim




Bonaqua Silver


Telemark kilden


Fyresdal




Farris


Kong Olavs kilde


Larvik




Fjellbekk


Ivar Aasen kilde


Volda




Isbre


Isbre kilden


Buhaugen, Osa, Ulvik




Isklar


Isklar kildene


Vikebygd i Ullensvang




Modal


Modal kilden


Fyresdal




Naturlig mineralvann fra Villmark kilden på Rustad Gård


Villmark kilden på Rustad gård


Rustad/Elverum




Olden


Blåfjell kilden


Olderdalen




Osa


Osa kilden


Ulvik/Hardanger






(1)  OJ L 164, 26.6.2009, p. 45.
Case F-35/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2010 — Adriaansen v European Investment Bank
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European official, action for annulment, divorce, information, supplementary pension








C_2011046EN.01001602.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/16





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2010 — Adriaansen v European Investment Bank
(Case F-35/10) (1)

2011/C 46/31
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 54.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010341EN.01000201.xml










16.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 December 2010
2010/C 341/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3360




JPY


Japanese yen


111,88




DKK


Danish krone


7,4516




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85290




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0798




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2826




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8660




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,155




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


274,63




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7097




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9783




RON


Romanian leu


4,2885




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0277




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3436




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3440




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3878




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7861




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7502




KRW


South Korean won


1 541,53




ZAR


South African rand


9,0686




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,8917




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3898




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 061,15




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1990




PHP


Philippine peso


58,706




RUB


Russian rouble


40,9375




THB


Thai baht


40,194




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2694




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5766




INR


Indian rupee


60,5640






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-25/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AG v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Manifest inadmissibility — Action brought out of time — Notice by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), dismissal, servant (EU)








C_2011038EN.01001903.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/19





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AG v Parliament
(Case F-25/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Manifest inadmissibility - Action brought out of time - Notice by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt)
2011/C 38/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period and compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Orders AG to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 58.
Case T-175/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Council v Stols (Appeal — Public service — Promotion — Comparative examination of the merits — Manifest error of assessment — Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European civil service, European official, action by staff, appeal, personnel administration, promotion








C_2011038EN.01001203.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/12





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Council v Stols
(Case T-175/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public service - Promotion - Comparative examination of the merits - Manifest error of assessment - Distortion of the evidence)
2011/C 38/20
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 F-51/08 Stols v Council [2009] ECR II-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08 Stols v Council [2009] ECR II-0000;










2.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 167,18.7.2009.