do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-277/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 6 June 2011 — MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Ireland, political asylum, refugee








C_2011226EN.01001801.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 6 June 2011 — MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-277/11)
2011/C 226/34
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MM

Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

Question referred







1.


In a case where an applicant seeks subsidiary protection status following a refusal to grant refugee status and it is proposed that such an application should be refused, does the requirement to cooperate with an applicant imposed on a Member State in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) require the administrative authorities of the Member State in question to supply such applicant with the results of such an assessment before a decision is finally made so as to enable him or her to address those aspects of the proposed decision which suggest a negative result?






(1)  OJ L 304, p. 12
Case C-281/11: Action brought on 6 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, genetically modified organism, microorganism, national implementing measure








C_2011252EN.01001501.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/15





Action brought on 6 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-281/11)
2011/C 252/29
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and M. Owsiany Hornung, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to transpose or transposing incorrectly Article 2(a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), Article 3(3), Article 4(3), Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 9(1) and (2)(a), Article 10(3) and (4) and Article 18(1), second subparagraph, and (3) and (4) of, and the fourth indent of Part A, the first indent of Part B and the first indent of Part C of Annex V to, Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains that the Republic of Poland has transposed incorrectly into Polish law the definitions of ‘micro-organism’, ‘genetically modified micro-organism’, ‘accident’ and ‘user’ contained respectively in Article 2(a), (b), (d) and (e) of Directive 2009/41. According to the Commission, an infringement is also constituted by the fact that the Polish legislation does not contain a definition of ‘notification’, a definition which appears in Article 2(f) of the directive.
The Commission further maintains that Articles 3(3), 6, 7, 8, 9(1) and (2)(a) and 18(1), second subparagraph, and (3) and (4) of Directive 2009/41 and the first indent of Part B and the first indent of Part C of Annex V thereto have not been transposed into Polish law.
According to the Commission, the transposition of Article 4(3) of Directive 2009/41 is incorrect because under Polish law the first class encompasses only activities of no risk whereas the directive also encompasses activities of negligible risk.
The Commission also complains that the Republic of Poland has implemented Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/41 incorrectly by restricting the possibility of specifying additional conditions for the contained use of genetically modified organisms solely to the situation where it is called for by the need to protect human health or the environment, whereas Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/41 does not contain such a restriction.
Furthermore, according to the Commission, Article 10(4) of Directive 2009/41 has been transposed into national law incorrectly because the latter introduces a 30-day period for which the directive does not provide.
Finally, the Commission asserts that the Polish authorities have not fully transposed the fourth indent of Part A of Annex V to Directive 2009/41.
Case C-363/10: Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal)) — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Zurich Companhia de Seguros, S.A.
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom of movement, insurance company, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, motor vehicle insurance, personal accident insurance, right of establishment, third-party insurance








C_2011252EN.01002707.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/27





Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal)) — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Zurich Companhia de Seguros, S.A.
(Case C-363/10) (1)

2011/C 252/58
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Case T-286/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 March 2011 in Case F-21/10 Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU institution, indemnification, legitimacy








C_2011232EN.01003502.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/35






Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 March 2011 in Case F-21/10 Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-286/11 P)
(2011/C 232/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:






—


Set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; and










—


grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;










—


order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance under appeal;




or, in the alternative:






—


refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to above.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging absolute failure to state reasons concerning the claim for damages.






—


The following are alleged in this regard: failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion of the facts, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.














2.


Second plea, alleging that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful.






—


It is submitted in particular in this connection that an order that a party to proceedings reimburse costs to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of that court can be justified only on the basis of facts closely connected with the case in question and not on the basis of alleged conduct on the part of that party in other cases.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 548/2011 of 6 June 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, agricultural product, import price








L_2011148EN.01000101.xml










7.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 148/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 548/2011
of 6 June 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 7 June 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 June 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 


TR 


110,0 




ZZ 


110,0 




0707 00 05 


TR 


100,7 




ZZ 


100,7 




0709 90 70 


EG 


82,4 




TR 


124,5 




ZZ 


103,5 




0709 90 80 


EC 


18,6 




ZZ 


18,6 




0805 50 10 


AR 


69,7 




BR 


36,6 




TR 


63,0 




ZA 


141,7 




ZZ 


77,8 




0808 10 80 


AR 


98,8 




BR 


78,5 




CA 


142,4 




CL 


83,3 




CN 


123,6 




NZ 


101,1 




US 


112,7 




UY 


50,2 




ZA 


103,1 




ZZ 


99,3 




0809 10 00 


TR 


214,0 




ZZ 


214,0 




0809 20 95 


TR 


392,6 




US 


392,9 




XS 


175,4 




ZZ 


320,3 






(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’.
Case T-285/11: Action brought on 6 June 2011 — Gooré v Council
Date: 2011-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2011238EN.01002101.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/21





Action brought on 6 June 2011 — Gooré v Council
(Case T-285/11)
2011/C 238/38
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Charles Kader Gooré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: F.L. Meynot, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in part Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 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, as regards the inclusion of the name of Mr Charles Kader Gooré in the list in Annex II thereto (and declare that it is inapplicable to him);










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay damages to Mr Charles Kader Gooré in the amount of fifty thousand euros (EUR 50 000) by way of compensation for the harm suffered;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his action:






1.


The first plea in law alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union, first, of failing to provide a statement of reasons and, second, of infringing the principle of proportionality, in that the restrictive measures go beyond what is necessary for achieving the objectives pursued by the Council of the European Union.










2.


The second plea in law alleges infringement of the treaties. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union, first, of infringing the rights of the defence in that all of the evidence in support of a measure were never communicated to the applicant and, second, of infringing the right to property.