do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-383/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Habitats Directive — Inadequacy of measures taken to protect the species Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) — Deterioration of habitats)
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife








C_2011226EN.01000302.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-383/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Habitats Directive - Inadequacy of measures taken to protect the species Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) - Deterioration of habitats)
2011/C 226/04
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora de (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Inadequacy of measures taken to protect the species Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster) — Deterioration of habitats

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to establish a programme of measures to ensure strict protection of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus Declaration of the European Parliament of 9 June 2011 on the work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Cyprus, committee (EU), human rights, illegal restraint








CE2012380EN.01013802.xml










11.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 380/138





Thursday 9 June 2011Work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus
P7_TA(2011)0274
Declaration of the European Parliament of 9 June 2011 on the work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus
2012/C 380 E/21

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas during the 1963-1964 intercommunal fighting, and thereafter with the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, around 2 000 individuals from both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities were reported as missing,










B.


whereas the whereabouts and fate of many of these individuals are still unknown,










C.


whereas the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP), which is supported financially by the United Nations, the European Commission and other donors, works to establish the fate of those reported missing,










1.


Fully endorses the work of the CMP and recognises its post-conflict role in promoting truth, remembrance and reconciliation in Cyprus;










2.


Calls on the European Commission to continue to allocate sufficient resources to the CMP to enable it to fulfil its important mandate;










3.


Calls on the Governments of Turkey and Cyprus to continue to support the CMP's work, to redouble efforts to account for those individuals still listed as missing and to ensure that all information that could facilitate the mission of the CMP is made freely available to it;










4.


Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (1), to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States and the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus.






(1)  The list of signatories is published in Annex 2 to the Minutes of 9 June 2011 (P7_PV(2011)06-09(ANN2)).
Case C-294/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2011 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom N.V.
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, deadline for payment, foreign national, tax rebate








C_2011252EN.01001902.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2011 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom N.V.
(Case C-294/11)
2011/C 252/35
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Elsacom N.V.

Question referred

Is the period of six months from the end of the calendar year in which value added tax became chargeable, being the time allowed for taxable persons not established in the territory of the country to submit an application for refund of that tax — as laid down in the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC (1) of 6 December 1979 — a mandatory time-limit, that is to say, a time-limit non-compliance with which results in forfeiture of the right to a refund?


(1)  OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11.
Case C-292/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, damages, public contract








C_2011252EN.01001901.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/19





Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
(Case C-292/11 P)
2011/C 252/34
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Heller)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2011 in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v Commission;










—


rule on the matters that are the subject of this appeal and were the subject of the action before the General Court, and dismiss the Portuguese Republic’s claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 November 2008 demanding payment of the penalty payment;










—


order the Portuguese Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Commission both at first instance and in this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by: (i) misappraising both the powers of the Commission with regard to compliance with judgments of the Court of Justice made pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU and its own jurisdiction to review the Commission’s actions; (ii) by ruling in the contested judgment, on the basis of an incomplete reading of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2004, that there had been failure to fulfil obligations, thereby infringing Article 260(2) TFEU. Furthermore, on any view the General Court’s judgment is marred by an error of law, for the General Court was in breach of its duty to state reasons, in that it decided on the basis of insufficient, contradictory reasoning that the Commission had overstepped the bounds of the infringement as found by the Court of Justice.
Case C-401/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Central Bank (Appeal — Admissibility — Power of attorney — Consortium — Public contracts — Negotiated procedure — IT consultancy and IT development services — Rejection of the tender — Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Interest in bringing proceedings — Ground for exclusion — Permit required by national law — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Central Bank, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), admissibility, award of contract, tendering








C_2011226EN.01000401.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Central Bank
(Case C-401/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Admissibility - Power of attorney - Consortium - Public contracts - Negotiated procedure - IT consultancy and IT development services - Rejection of the tender - Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Interest in bringing proceedings - Ground for exclusion - Permit required by national law - Obligation to state reasons)
2011/C 226/05
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and G. Gruber, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06 Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Central Bank (ECB) dismissing an action for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 31 July 2006 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the negotiated procedure for the provision of IT consultancy and IT development services to the ECB (OJ 2005 S 137-135345) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
Combating corruption in European Sport Declaration of the European Parliament of 9 June 2011 on combating corruption in European Sport
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European cooperation, corruption, money laundering, professional sport








CE2012380EN.01013801.xml










11.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 380/138





Thursday 9 June 2011Combating corruption in European Sport
P7_TA(2011)0273
Declaration of the European Parliament of 9 June 2011 on combating corruption in European Sport
2012/C 380 E/20

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the seventh indent of Article 165(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states that Union action shall be aimed at developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions,










—


having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


recognising the very important social and financial impact of European sport on citizens and enterprises in the Union,










B.


whereas according to the White Paper on Sport (COM(2007)0391) corruption problems with a European dimension need to be tackled at European level and the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of EU anti-money laundering legislation in the Member States with regard to the sport sector,










1.


Calls on the Commission to coordinate, together with Member States, a large-scale study on corruption incidents in European sport, consulting all relevant stakeholders;










2.


Calls on the Commission and the Member States to highlight specifically links between organised crime activity and legal and illegal betting, sport agents, referees, club officials and sportsmen and women, that aim to fix the results of European sport matches in advance;










3.


Calls on the Commission to regulate online betting, in the interests of the integrity and sustainable development of European sport, through licensed operators, specific measures to combat match-fixing and ensuring a fair return to grassroots sport through the recognition of a betting right to sports competition organisers;










4.


Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (1), to the Commission and the Parliaments of the Member States.






(1)  The list of signatories is published in Annex 1 to the Minutes of 9 June 2011 (P7_PV(2011)06-09(ANN1)).
Case T-87/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Finding that there were irregularities in certain documents provided by the successful tenderer — Decisions imposing administrative sanctions on the successful tenderer and unilateral termination of the contract — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, award of contract, industrial counterfeiting, servant (EU)








C_2011219EN.01001703.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/17





Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors
(Case T-87/11 R)
(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Finding that there were irregularities in certain documents provided by the successful tenderer - Decisions imposing administrative sanctions on the successful tenderer and unilateral termination of the contract - Application for suspension of the operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
2011/C 219/27
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: GRP Security (Bretrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Osch, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Steiner and J. Vermer, lawyers)

Re:

Suspension of the operation of the decisions of the Court of Auditors of 14 January 2011 by which, first, the Court of Auditors claimed payment from the applicant of damages in the amount of EUR 16 000 and reserved the right to claim further amounts by way of damages and, secondly, imposed on the applicant the administrative penalty of exclusion from contracts and subsidies financed by the budget of the European Union for a provisional period of three months.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case C-291/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 9 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, protein products, therapeutics








C_2011252EN.01001802.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 9 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV
(Case C-291/11)
2011/C 252/33
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV

Question referred

Should Note 1(g) to Chapter 30 of the Harmonised System, read in conjunction with Note 1(b) to Chapter 35 of the Harmonised System, be interpreted as meaning that blood albumin, which itself has no therapeutic or prophylactic effect but which has been produced with a view to, and is essential for, the preparation of products which do have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect, and which by its nature can be used only for that purpose, has been prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses within the meaning of that note?
Misleading business directories European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2011 on misleading business directories (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others)
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: advertising malpractice, commercial contract, directory, free service








CE2012380EN.01012801.xml










11.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 380/128





Thursday 9 June 2011Misleading business directories
P7_TA(2011)0269
European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2011 on misleading business directories (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others)
2012/C 380 E/16

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2008 on misleading directory companies (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others) (1),










—


having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas Parliament has received more than 400 petitions concerning widespread misleading business practices by business directory companies affecting thousands of mostly small businesses in the European Union, with a significant financial impact; whereas Parliament continues to receive petitions and complaints about business directory companies,










B.


whereas the misleading business practices in question typically consist in luring businesses, as well as professionals and non-profit entities, into being listed in a business directory free of charge; whereas signatories later discover that they have signed up to a contract with a fee,










C.


whereas the business directory companies are often established in a different Member State from that of their victims, making it difficult for the latter to seek protection and/or redress from national authorities,










1.


Regrets that Directive 2006/114/EC (2) on misleading and comparative advertising, which applies to business-to-business transactions, appears to be either insufficient in providing an effective remedy or inadequately enforced by Member States;










2.


Recalls that, although the Commission has no power to enforce the Directive directly against individuals or companies, it does have a duty to ensure that the Directive is adequately implemented by Member States;










3.


Calls on the Commission to proactively verify Member States' transposition, implementation and national enforcement of Directive 2006/114/EC and take corrective action where needed;










4.


Urges the Commission to speed up its activities with regard to revising and improving the Directive and other relevant legislation so as to put an end to the misleading practices of business directory companies as soon as possible, notably by specifically black-listing misleading practices by business directories;










5.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 45 E, 23.2.2010, p, 17.

(2)  OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p, 21.
Case C-115/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Complementary direct national aid — Conditions for grant)
Date: 2011-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Hungary, State aid, aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law, terms for aid








C_2011226EN.01000602.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
(Case C-115/10) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Complementary direct national aid - Conditions for grant)
2011/C 226/10
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővarosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bábolna Mezőgazdasági Termelő, Fejlesztő és Kereskedelmi Zrt.

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), and Articles 1 and 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 113) — National legislation excluding producers engaged in a liquidation procedure from national complementary aid linked to the single area payment regime — Whether Member States may lay down conditions for eligibility for national complementary aid which do not apply to the grant of the Community aid in question

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Decision 2004/281/EC of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid legal persons carrying out an agricultural activity in the territory of the Member State in question, on the ground that they are the subject of voluntary dissolution proceedings, where a condition relating to the absence of such proceedings has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the European Commission.


(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.