do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-15/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Mariën v EEAS
Date: 2011-03-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Afghanistan, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, damages, international civil servant








C_2011139EN.01003003.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/30





Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Mariën v EEAS
(Case F-15/11)
2011/C 139/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Peter Mariën (Elsene, Belgium) (represented by: B. Theeuwes and F. Pons, attorneys)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of Head of the EU Delegation to Afghanistan which ordered to members of this Delegation to leave their hotel and to move into a housing compound of the EU.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision contained in the e-mail message of January 11, 2011 of EU Special Representative and Head of the EU Delegation to Afghanistan ordering the Applicant to relocate on January 14, 2011 to the residential compound in Kabul, Afghanistan;










—


order the EEAS to bear all costs relating to the temporary residence measures;










—


order the EEAS to pay an indemnity of 10 000 euros to the Applicant for the psychological stress and harm caused;










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Case C-135/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 March 2011 by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08: IFAW v European Commission
Date: 2011-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, action for annulment, information service, provision of documents








C_2011179EN.01000803.xml










18.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/8





Appeal brought on 18 March 2011 by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08: IFAW v European Commission
(Case C-135/11 P)
2011/C 179/14
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (represented by: S. Crosby, Advocaat, S. Santoro, Avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


find that the contested judgment is vitiated by errors of law and to set it aside accordingly;










—


annul the Commission's decision refusing access to the Schröder letter and










—


order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in both proceedings pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant contends that the General Court, in the contested judgment, erred in law by:






—


not recognizing that the Commission has to conduct a full review of whether the grounds relied upon by the Member State for not disclosing a document fall under one of the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) by testing the exceptions against the content of the document; and










—


ruling that it was able in law to conduct a full review of the refusal to disclose without sight of the document in question.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, p. 43
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 268/2011 of 18 March 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2011074EN.01000101.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 74/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 268/2011
of 18 March 2011
         
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 19 March 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 March 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

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 


JO 


71,2 




MA 


57,6 




TN 


52,6 




TR 


79,8 




ZZ 


65,3 




0707 00 05 


JO 


110,6 




TR 


150,3 




ZZ 


130,5 




0709 90 70 


MA 


38,7 




TR 


127,0 




ZZ 


82,9 




0805 10 20 


EG 


56,1 




IL 


74,3 




MA 


51,2 




TN 


61,8 




TR 


73,2 




ZZ 


63,3 




0805 50 10 


EG 


67,3 




MA 


45,2 




TR 


47,5 




ZZ 


53,3 




0808 10 80 


AR 


92,8 




BR 


86,0 




CA 


96,0 




CL 


104,2 




CN 


107,3 




MK 


50,2 




US 


135,3 




ZZ 


96,0 




0808 20 50 


AR 


95,5 




CL 


68,9 




CN 


65,5 




US 


79,9 




ZA 


89,6 




ZZ 


79,9 






(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’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6121 — GEA Dutch Holding/CFS Holdings)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, food production, foodstuff, merger control








C_2011085EN.01000101.xml










18.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6121 — GEA Dutch Holding/CFS Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 85/01
On 11 March 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6121. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-132/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH
Date: 2011-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, air transport, equal pay, equal treatment, pollution control measures








C_2011186EN.01001102.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH
(Case C-132/11)
2011/C 186/19
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

Questions referred







1.


Does European Union law as currently applicable, in particular in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (in conjunction with Article 6(1) TEU), the general legal principle of European Law (Article 6(3) TEU) relating to the prohibition of age discrimination, and Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) preclude a national collective agreement which, in making grade classifications under the collective agreement, and thus determining the level of remuneration, discriminates indirectly against older workers by taking account only of their skills and knowledge which they have acquired as air stewards or stewardesses with one airline but not the substantively identical skills and knowledge which they have acquired with another airline within the same group? Does this also apply to an employment relationship which was entered into before 1 December 2009?










2.


Can a national court treat as void and disapply a clause of an individual employment contract which indirectly infringes Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the general legal principle of European Union law relating to the prohibition of age discrimination, and/or Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, by analogy with the case of Rieser
 (2) and with the case-law concerning agreements breaching antitrust rules as in the case of Béguelin
 (3) on grounds of the horizontal direct effect of the fundamental rights of the European Union?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

(2)  Case C-157/02 ECR [2004] I-1477.

(3)  Case C-22/71 ECR [1971] 949.
Case C-136/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission Wien (Austria), lodged on 18 March 2011 — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
Date: 2011-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, charges for use of infrastructure, consumer information, rail transport








C_2011173EN.01000502.xml










11.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission Wien (Austria), lodged on 18 March 2011 — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
(Case C-136/11)
2011/C 173/09
Language of the case: German

Referring tribunal

Schienen-Control Kommission Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Complainant: Westbahn Management GmbH

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (1) to be interpreted as meaning that information on main connecting services must include, in addition to scheduled departure times, notification of delays to or cancellations of those connecting services?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure [and safety certification] (2) to be interpreted, in the light of Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, as meaning that the infrastructure manager is under an obligation to make real-time data on other railway undertakings’ trains available to railway undertakings in a non-discriminatory manner, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Annex II, Part II, to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007?






(1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.

(2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).