do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-18/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Zaffino v Commission (Civil service — Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Action — Manifestly inadmissible — Failure to comply with the preliminary procedure)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, servant (EU), staff assessment, working conditions








C_2012138EN.01003101.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/31






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Zaffino v Commission
(Case F-18/11)
(Civil service - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifestly inadmissible - Failure to comply with the preliminary procedure)
(2012/C 138/68)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pasqualino Zaffino (Gallarate, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s request to be granted the status of servant of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Zaffino shall bear his own costs.
Case F-57/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pedeferri and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action — Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Inadmissibility — Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrative procedure, civil servant, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU), working conditions








C_2012138EN.01002902.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/29






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pedeferri and Others v Commission
(Case F-57/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Inadmissibility - Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)
(2012/C 138/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Stefano Pedeferri (Mornago, Italy) and Others (represented by: G. Vistoli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Subject-matter of the case

Application for recognition of the applicants’ status as servants

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 36.
Case C-357/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Maahanmuuttovirasto
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, interpretation of the law, parental authority, residence permit, third country








C_2011269EN.01003602.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/36





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Maahanmuuttovirasto
(Case C-357/11)
2011/C 269/75
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Maahanmuuttovirasto

Other party: L

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a third-country national from being refused a residence permit because of lack of means of subsistence in a family situation in which his spouse is the carer of a child who is a citizen of the Union and the third-country national is not that child’s parent or carer and does not live with his spouse or with that child?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must the effect of Article 20 TFEU be assessed differently if the third-country national who does not have a residence permit, and does not live in Finland, and his spouse have a child, in their joint care and living in Finland, who is a third-country national?
Case T-161/04: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Valero Jordana v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Reserve list for an open competition and individual decisions concerning the appointment of officials — Refusal of access — Exception concerning privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, appointment of staff, civil servant, competition (EU)








C_2011238EN.01001401.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/14





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Valero Jordana v Commission
(Case T-161/04) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Reserve list for an open competition and individual decisions concerning the appointment of officials - Refusal of access - Exception concerning privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)
2011/C 238/19
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Aalto and E. Adserá Ribera, later by: E. Adserá Ribera and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh and J. Jørgensen Søren, Agents); Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Kruse and K. Norman, later by: A. Falk, S. Johannesson, K. Petkovska and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans, H. Kranenborg and R. Barceló, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10 February 2004 refusing the applicant’ request for access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 February 2004 refusing to give Mr Gregorio Valero Jordana access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995;










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Valero Jordana's costs;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs;










4.


Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs










5.


Removes the Kingdom of Denmark as an intervener in Case T-161/04;










6.


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs;










7.


Orders Mr Valero Jordana, the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden and the EDPS to bear their own costs in regard to the Kingdom of Denmark's intervention.






(1)  OJ C 168, 26.06.2004.
Case C-445/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — IMC Securities BV v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (Directive 2003/6/EC — Market manipulation — Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial legislation, financial transaction, insider trading, interpretation of the law, securities, stock exchange








C_2011269EN.01000601.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — IMC Securities BV v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten
(Case C-445/09) (1)

(Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level)
2011/C 269/08
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: IMC Securities BV

Respondent: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a), second indent, of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) — Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level — Meaning — Transactions and orders bringing about a brief fluctuation of prices

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a), second indent, of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) must be interpreted as not requiring, in order for the price of one or more financial instruments to be considered to have been fixed at an abnormal or artificial level, that that price must maintain an abnormal or artificial level for more than a certain duration.


(1)  OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.
Case C-263/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)) — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, approximation of laws, environmental tax, import (EU), interpretation of the law, motor vehicle industry, pollution, vehicle registration








C_2011269EN.01001601.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)) — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-263/10) (1)

(Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles)
2011/C 269/25
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Gorj — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Pollution tax on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Classification of the criterion of ‘date of first registration’ — Whether the national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU — Whether exemption from payment of the tax, introduced for certain categories of vehicle, is lawful — Possible application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.


(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Corrigendum to Commission notice concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain concentrated soy protein products originating in the People's Republic of China ( OJ C 121, 19.4.2011 )
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, common agricultural policy, dumping, import, soya bean, third country








C_2011199EN.01001402.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/14





Corrigendum to Commission notice concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain concentrated soy protein products originating in the People's Republic of China
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 121 of 19 April 2011
)
2011/C 199/11
As regards the title of the act,
for:

read:
Case F-20/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Bracalente v Commission (Civil service — Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Action — Manifestly inadmissible — Failure to comply with preliminary procedure)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, servant (EU), staff assessment, working conditions








C_2012138EN.01003103.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/31






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Bracalente v Commission
(Case F-20/11)
(Civil service - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifestly inadmissible - Failure to comply with preliminary procedure)
(2012/C 138/70)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Gianpaolo Bracalente (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s request to be granted the status of servant of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Bracalente shall bear his own costs.
Case T-208/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TRUEWHITE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Descriptive mark)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, trade-mark law








C_2011340EN.01001802.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/18





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE)
(Case T-208/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TRUEWHITE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Descriptive mark)
2011/C 340/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Cree, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner, and subsequently by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2010 (Case R 985/2009-2) concerning registration of the sign TRUEWHITE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cree, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: International Civil Aviation Organization
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, innovation, research








C_2011199EN.01000701.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/7





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
2011/C 199/03
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


23 March 2011




Case number


:


69527




Decision number


:


89/11/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Modification of the scheme for Centres for Research-based Innovation




Legal basis


:


Government's White paper on research: ‘Commitment to research’. Budget document for 2011 from the Ministry of Education and Research. Guidelines from the Research Council of Norway




Form of aid


:


Grant




Budget


:


NOK 1 680 million




Duration


:


Until 2019




Name and address of the granting authority


:







The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research




PO Box 8119 Dep.




0032 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case C-536/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Word sign ROI ANALYZER )
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011311EN.01001501.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/15





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-536/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’)
2011/C 311/22
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (represented by: W. Göpfert, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08 MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded;










2.


MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Case T-347/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, indemnification, parliamentary immunity








C_2011252EN.01004301.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/43





Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Case T-347/11)
2011/C 252/93
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt Report No A7-0154/2011;










—


award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage;










—


award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 4 000 by way of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0154/2011) and to reject the request for the defence of immunity and privileges of Bruno Gollnisch (2010/2097(IMM)) and, second, compensation for the non-material damage that it allegedly suffered in consequence of the adoption of the contested decision.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law:






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union of 8 April 1965.










2.


Second plea, concerning the necessary application in the present case of Article 9 of the Protocol.










3.


Third plea, alleging failure to follow the precedents set by previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging failure to respect the legal certainty of European Union law and breach of legitimate expectations.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging breach of the independence of a Member.










6.


Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the provisions of the rules of the European Parliament relating to proceedings which might lead to the disqualification of a Member.










7.


Seventh plea, alleging breach of the rule that the parties should be heard and of the applicant’s rights of defence.