do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-161/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos AE Epexergasias kai Emporias Stafidas, formerly K. Fragkopoulos kai SIA OE v Normarchiaki Aftodioikisi Korinthias (Free movement of goods — Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions — Currants — National legislation aimed at protecting the quality of the product — Restrictions imposed on marketing according to different areas of production — Justification — Proportionality)
Date: 2011-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, fruit, fruit-growing, grape, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, product quality








C_2011130EN.01000302.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos AE Epexergasias kai Emporias Stafidas, formerly K. Fragkopoulos kai SIA OE v Normarchiaki Aftodioikisi Korinthias
(Case C-161/09) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions - Currants - National legislation aimed at protecting the quality of the product - Restrictions imposed on marketing according to different areas of production - Justification - Proportionality)
2011/C 130/05
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos AE Epexergasias kai Emporias Stafidas, formerly K. Fragkopoulos kai SIA OE

Defendant: Normarchiaki Aftodioikisi Korinthias

intervening parties: Ypourgos Georgias, Enosis Agrotikon Synaiterismon Aigialeias tou Nomou Achaïas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions on exports– Measures having equivalent effect — National legislation distinguishing between regions producing dried grapes according to their quality — Prohibition on bringing drying grapes from Region B, where the drying grapes are of inferior quality, into Region A, where they are of superior quality, to be processed and marketed — Prohibition on bringing into Region A best drying grapes from a particular area of that region to be processed and marketed — Compatibility with Articles 29 EC and 30 EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down an absolute prohibition on bringing in, storing, processing and packing for export dried grapes both as between the two sub-areas of area A and as between the second sub-area of area A and area B, since it does not enable the legitimate objectives pursued to be met consistently and goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the attainment of those objectives.


(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
Case C-106/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 March 2011 — M.J. Bakker v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2011-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, family benefit, preliminary ruling procedure, social legislation, worker (EU)








C_2011160EN.01001002.xml










28.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 March 2011 — M.J. Bakker v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-106/11)
2011/C 160/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M.J. Bakker

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Are the designation rules in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) applicable in a case such as the present, where an employed person with Netherlands nationality residing in Spain is employed as a seafarer by an employer established in the Netherlands, and carries out his work on board dredgers which navigate outside the territory of the Community under the Netherlands flag, with the result that the legislation of the Netherlands is designated as the legislation applicable, so that consequently Netherlands national insurance contributions may be levied, whereas judging solely on the basis of the national legislation of the Netherlands he is not affiliated to the Netherlands social security scheme as a result of the fact that he does not reside in the Netherlands?










2.


To what extent is it important in that regard that in the implementation of the Netherlands employed persons’ insurance scheme a policy is followed by virtue of which seafarers in a case such as the present are considered by the implementing body to be insured persons on the basis of Community law?






(1)  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 (OJ English special edition, 1971 (II), p. 416).
Case T-124/11: Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Kipré v Council
Date: 2011-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, action for annulment, change of political system, human rights, political rights, political system








C_2011130EN.01001901.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/19





Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Kipré v Council
(Case T-124/11)
2011/C 130/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Stéphane Kipré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6104 — Safran/SNPE Matériaux Energétiques/Regulus)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011068EN.01000701.xml










3.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6104 — Safran/SNPE Matériaux Energétiques/Regulus)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 68/06






1.


On 23 February 2011 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 Safran (‘Safran’, France), belonging to the group Safran Société Anonyme (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of SNPE Matériaux Energétiques (‘SME’, France) and joint control of Regulus (‘Regulus’, France; Regulus and SME are hereinafter referred to together as ‘the Target’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Safran: aerospace propulsion, aircraft equipment, defence and security,










—


for the Target: tactical, strategic and space propulsion, pyrotechnic equipment, composite materials.














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.6104 — Safran/SNPE Matériaux Energétiques/Regulus, 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’).