do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-122/11: Action brought on 8 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2011-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, appeal, residence, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation








C_2011160EN.01001201.xml










28.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/12





Action brought on 8 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-122/11)
2011/C 160/13
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and G. Rozet, lawyers)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by having removed with effect only from 1 August 2004 the condition of residence which precluded the indexation of the pensions of citizens of the European Union and of the EEA residing outside a country having concluded a reciprocal agreement with Belgium, and by not having removed the discrimination which they suffered throughout the period before 1 August 2004, by being deprived of part of their pension, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) and Article 18 and 45 TFEU which lay down the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality;










—


Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that the national legislation discriminates between nationals of other Member States to the extent that it imposes only on them a condition of residence on the territory of one of the Member States or of one of the countries which concluded a reciprocal agreement with Belgium in order to benefit from the indexation of their pension for the period up to 1 August 2004.
The Commission pleads, in addition, that the said Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 no longer provides that residence on the territory of a Member State is necessary in order to be able to rely on the principle of equal treatment. The persons covered by that regulation may therefore request the application of that principle even if they reside in a third State. Thus, a State may no longer reserve indexation of pensions for its nationals alone, but must also grant such indexation to retired persons residing in a third State.
Finally, according to the Commission, legitimate expectations, practical difficulties and the financial impact, grounds relied on by the Belgian authorities to justify the impossibility of applying the amended legislation retroactively, cannot be accepted.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1.
Opinion 1/09: Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 8 March 2011 — Council of the European Union (Opinion delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft agreement — Creation of a unified patent litigation system — European and Community Patents Court — Compatibility of the draft agreement with the Treaties)
Date: 2011-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC opinion, European patent, civil proceedings, patents licence








C_2011211EN.01000202.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/2





Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 8 March 2011 — Council of the European Union
(Opinion 1/09) (1)

(Opinion delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement - Creation of a unified patent litigation system - European and Community Patents Court - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the Treaties)
2011/C 211/03
Language of the case: all the official languages.

Parties


Applicant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Request for an opinion — Compatibility, with the EC Treaty, of a draft agreement creating a unified patent litigation system — European and Community Patents Court, composed of a court of first instance and a court of appeal — Attribution to that court of jurisdiction to determine, in particular, disputes relating to the validity and/or application of Community patents, linked to the power or the obligation for that court to refer to the Court of Justice questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EC Treaty or the validity and interpretation of acts adopted by the European Union institutions — Adverse effect on the autonomy of the Community legal order and the primacy of Community law?

Operative part

The envisaged agreement creating a unified patent litigation system (currently called ‘European and Community Patents Court’) is not compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty.


(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
Case T-463/09: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2011 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (Form of a stirrup) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of that application — No need to give judgment)
Date: 2011-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2011139EN.01001703.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/17





Order of the General Court of 8 March 2011 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (Form of a stirrup)
(Case T-463/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of that application - No need to give judgment)
2011/C 139/34
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein and B. Schmidt, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: N. Fischer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2009 (Case R 1614/2008-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH and Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to give judgment on the action.










2.


The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and half of the defendant’s costs.






(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
Case C-240/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky (Environment — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters — Direct effect)
Date: 2011-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, access to the courts, environmental law, international convention, interpretation of the law, transparency in decision-making








C_2011130EN.01000402.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/4





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-240/09) (1)

(Environment - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters - Direct effect)
2011/C 130/07
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

Defendant: Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic — Interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Direct effect of that provision — Interpretation of the concept of ‘acts of public authorities’ — Inclusion or not of the decisions of a public authority, the unlawfulness of which lies in their effect on the environment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 does not have direct effect in European Union law. It is, however, for the referring court to interpret, to the fullest extent possible, the procedural rules relating to the conditions to be met in order to bring administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with the objectives of Article 9(3) of that convention and the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by European Union law, in order to enable an environmental protection organisation, such as the Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, to challenge before a court a decision taken following administrative proceedings liable to be contrary to European Union environmental law.


(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.