do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-15/10: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2011 — Noko Ngele v Commission and Others (Non-contractual liability — Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction — Action inadmissible in part — Absence of causal link — Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Centre for the Development of Enterprise, European Commission, appeal








C_2011152EN.01002002.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/20





Order of the General Court of 25 March 2011 — Noko Ngele v Commission and Others
(Case T-15/10) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction - Action inadmissible in part - Absence of causal link - Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
2011/C 152/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, agent), AT (Brussels, Belgium) AU (Brussels), AV (Brussels) and AW (Brussels)

Re:

Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of pursuing recovery of a debt owed to him and the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of criminal proceedings instigated against him in Belgium

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed on the basis that it has been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it is directed against AT, AU, AV and AW.










2.


Mr Mariyus Noko Ngele’s head of claim seeking from the Court a declaration that the Centre pour le développement des entreprises (CDE) never replaced the Centre pour le développement industriel (CDI) and that the CDE does not exist in law or have legal personality in Belgium is dismissed on the basis that it is made before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.










3.


Mr Noko Ngele’s claim that the Court should order that the judgment to be delivered is enforceable is rejected as inadmissible.










4.


The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.










5.


Mr Noko Ngele is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
Information from Estonia concerning implementation of Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Estonia, application of EU law, information, inland transport, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety








C_2011093EN.01001601.xml










25.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/16





Information from Estonia concerning implementation of Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
2011/C 93/09
The Republic of Estonia has informed the Commission according to Annex II, Section II.2.8 to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods that:






—


in accordance to the requirements set out in Annex II, Section II.2.8 to Directive 2008/68/EC Estonia uses Annex II to SMGS regarding the transport of dangerous goods by rail from and to contracting parties of the OSJD which are not Member States of the European Union.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6164 — Barclays Bank/Egg Credit Card Assets)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control








C_2011093EN.01002601.xml










25.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/26





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6164 — Barclays Bank/Egg Credit Card Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 93/14






1.


On 14 March 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 Barclays Bank PLC (‘Barclays’, UK) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of part(s) of the undertaking Egg Banking plc (‘Egg’, UK), ultimately controlled by Citigroup Inc. (‘Citigroup’), by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Barclays: global financial services,










—


for the target: issue and operation of credit cards in the UK.














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.6164 — Barclays Bank/Egg Credit Card Assets, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6120 — APMT/PSA/COSCO/DPPC/DPCT)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, means of transport, merger control








C_2011093EN.01000102.xml










25.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6120 — APMT/PSA/COSCO/DPPC/DPCT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 93/02
On 21 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 32011M6120. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-145/11: Action brought on 25 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, pharmaceutical legislation, public health, single market, veterinary drug








C_2011160EN.01001202.xml










28.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/12





Action brought on 25 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-145/11)
2011/C 160/14
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by refusing to approve two applications for marketing authorisations of the veterinary medicinal products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure laid down by Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Commission submits that the abovementioned Directive 2001/82/EC does not allow a Member State, in the context of the decentralised procedure, to carry out a legal and scientific assessment of an application for authorisation. The purpose of the validation phase is merely to verify if the dossier submitted is identical in all the Member States, if it is complete, and if it includes the list of Member States concerned, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 32(1) of the directive. The applicant thus criticises the defendant for refusing applications for authorisation by relying inter alia on grounds concerning the composition of the medicinal product and its pharmaceutical form, its alleged non-compliance with national law and the possible dangers to public health.
The Commission also points out that, at the validation stage, the Member States affected by an application for authorisation have the obligation to approve the assessment report submitted by the reference Member State, unless they invoke a serious potential risk to human or animal health or the environment, in compliance with Article 33 of the directive. The French authorities therefore failed to follow the procedure laid down by that article.


(1)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1).
Case C-147/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, immigration, interpretation of the law, residence permit








C_2011152EN.01001702.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop
(Case C-147/11)
2011/C 152/31
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant: Lucja Czop

Questions referred

In circumstances where a claimant:






(a)


is a citizen of Poland;










(b)


came to the United Kingdom before her country acceded to the EU;










(c)


established herself in self-employment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 TEC);










(d)


remained here, and continued in self-employment, following accession;










(e)


is no longer in self-employment; and










(f)


is the primary carer of a child who came to the United Kingdom and entered general education after accession and after she ceased to be established in self-employment,




does the claimant have a right to reside in the United Kingdom on the basis that (individually or cumulatively):






(a)


Regulation 1612/68 (1) applies, together with the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-413/99) [2002] ECR I-7091, London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth (Case C-480/08);










(b)


there is a general principle of EU law that equates the position of workers and the self-employed;










(c)


it would impede or deter the freedom of establishment if the claimant did not have a right to reside?






(1)  OJ L 257, p. 2
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 25 March 2011 in the case of Grund, elli- og hjúkrunarheimili v Lyfjastofnun (Icelandic Medicines Control Agency) (Case E-7/11)
Date: 2011-03-25
Institutions: Iceland
Subjects: Iceland, free movement of goods, health service, medicinal product








C_2011215EN.01003101.xml










21.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/31





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 25 March 2011 in the case of Grund, elli- og hjúkrunarheimili v Lyfjastofnun (Icelandic Medicines Control Agency)
(Case E-7/11)
2011/C 215/13
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 25 March 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Grund, elli- og hjúkrunarheimili (an old peoples’ and nursing home) v Lyfjastofnun (Icelandic Medicines Control Agency), on the following questions:






1.


Is Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and, as appropriate, other EEA legislation, including Articles 11-13 of the main text of the EEA Agreement on the free movement of goods, to be interpreted as meaning that a health-care institution such as the plaintiff, which provides people with health care and medical services, may not import, for use by the people in the care of the institution, medicinal products from Norway which have been granted Norwegian national marketing authorisation, by reference to an Icelandic national marketing authorisation for medicinal products under the same name, if the authorisations were granted before Directive 2001/83/EC entered into force?










2.


If this is the situation, then how is a health-care institution like the plaintiff, which maintains that medicinal products imported from another EEA contracting party have Icelandic marketing authorisation, to demonstrate that this is the case? Is the first paragraph of Article 51 i.f. of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that the health-care institution is required to present a control report to the Defendant as the competent surveillance authority? Is it possible that less stringent requirements regarding the burden of proof could be made regarding the import of medicinal products from Norway, if the products are not intended for further sale or other distribution or marketing in Iceland, but only for the use of persons in the care of the health-care institution?










3.


Do the competent authorities have completely unrestricted discretion as to whether, and then to whom, they grant exemptions under the third paragraph of Article 63 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in the case of medicinal products that are imported by a health-care institution such as the plaintiff when the products are not intended for self-administration but are prepared by a pharmacist employed by the health-care institution and delivered to the users in specially-designed medicinal-product boxes?