do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-356/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — O, S
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, interpretation of the law, parental authority, residence permit, third country








C_2011269EN.01003601.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 — O, S
(Case C-356/11)
2011/C 269/74
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: O, S

Other party: Maahanmuuttovirasto

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 a child who is a citizen of the Union is cared for by his spouse and the third-country national is not that child’s parent or carer?










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, his spouse, and the child who is cared for by the spouse and has Union citizenship live together?
Case C-169/11: Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Patrick Conteh
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, arrest, freedom of movement, illegal migration, third country








C_2011269EN.01003903.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/39





Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Patrick Conteh
(Case C-169/11) (1)

2011/C 269/84
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India ( OJ C 142, 13.5.2011 )
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, import, metal product, originating product, spare part, special steels, steel








C_2011199EN.01001301.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/13





Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 142 of 13 May 2011
)
2011/C 199/08
As regards the title of the act,
for:

read:
Case T-351/09: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Acetificio Marcello de Nigris v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: condiment, designation of origin, location of production, product designation, regions of Italy








C_2011282EN.01001703.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/17





Order of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Acetificio Marcello de Nigris v Commission
(Case T-351/09) (1)

(Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
2011/C 282/32
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Acetificio Marcello de Nigris Srl (Afragola, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and S. Fiorentino, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] (OJ 2009 L 175, p. 7)

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena.










3.


Acetificio Marcello de Nigris Srl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The Italian Republic and Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.
Case C-523/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet (Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections and controls in respect of milk production)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal nutrition, financing, food inspection, foodstuff, health control, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2011269EN.01000702.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/7





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet
(Case C-523/09) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Fees for health inspections and controls in respect of milk production)
2011/C 269/11
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS

Defendant: Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27 of and Annexes IV and VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) — Calculation of fees charged for official controls in respect of milk production — Charging of fees equivalent to the minimum rates applicable under the regulation but higher than the actual costs borne by the competent authorities for official controls

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as enabling a Member State to levy fees at the minimum rates laid down in Annex IV, section B to that regulation without having to adopt a measure of application at national level, even though the costs borne by the competent authorities in connection with the health inspections and controls laid down in that regulation are lower than those rates, when the specified conditions for applying Article 27(6) of that regulation are not satisfied.


(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India ( OJ C 142, 13.5.2011 )
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, import, metal product, originating product, spare part, special steels, steel








C_2011199EN.01001302.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/13





Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 142 of 13 May 2011
)
2011/C 199/09
As regards the title of the act,
for:

read:
Case F-21/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pirri v Commission (Civil Service — Person claiming the status of official or other servant of the European Union — Action — Manifest inadmissibility — failure to observe the pre-contentious procedure)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, servant (EU), staff assessment, working conditions








C_2012138EN.01003104.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 — Pirri v Commission
(Case F-21/11)
(Civil Service - Person claiming the status of official or other servant of the European Union - Action - Manifest inadmissibility - failure to observe the pre-contentious procedure)
(2012/C 138/71)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Antonio Gerado Pirri (Travedona Monate, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s claim for status of official or other servant of the European Union

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Pirri is ordered to bear his own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6257 — Blackstone/Valad Property) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, real property








C_2011199EN.01001001.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6257 — Blackstone/Valad Property)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 199/06






1.


On 30 June 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 The Blackstone Group L.P. (‘Blackstone’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Valad Funds Management Limited and Valad Property Trust (together ‘Valad Property’, Australia) by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Blackstone: alternative asset management, financial advisory services,










—


for Valad Property: real estate services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6257 — Blackstone/Valad Property, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, issue of securities, merger control








C_2011199EN.01000901.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 199/05






1.


On 29 June 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 undertakings NYSE Euronext (‘NYX’, US) and Deutsche Börse (‘DB’, Germany) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for NYX: cash listing services, cash trading and post trading services, derivatives trading and clearing services, information services, and technology solutions,










—


for DB: cash listing services, cash trading and post trading services, derivatives trading and clearing services, information services, and technology solutions.














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.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse, 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’).
Case T-346/11: 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.01004201.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/42





Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Case T-346/11)
2011/C 252/92
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 A7-0155/2011;










—


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 (A7-0155/2011) and to reject the request for the defence of immunity and privileges of Bruno Gollnisch (2010/2284(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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011199EN.01000601.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 July 2011
2011/C 199/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4318




JPY


Japanese yen


116,03




DKK


Danish krone


7,4589




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89485




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0902




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2059




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7665




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,265




HUF


Hungarian forint


265,06




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7091




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9544




RON


Romanian leu


4,2105




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3394




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3420




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3833




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,1436




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7335




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7605




KRW


South Korean won


1 522,70




ZAR


South African rand


9,7005




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2592




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3993




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 240,27




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3146




PHP


Philippine peso


61,526




RUB


Russian rouble


40,0600




THB


Thai baht


43,660




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2495




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7138




INR


Indian rupee


63,5790






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-19/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Galvan v Commission (Civil Service — Person claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Action — Manifest inadmissibility — Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, servant (EU), staff assessment, working conditions








C_2012138EN.01003102.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 — Galvan v Commission
(Case F-19/11)
(Civil Service - Person claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifest inadmissibility - Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)
(2012/C 138/69)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Galvan (Besano, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

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

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Galvan is to pay his own costs.
Case T-283/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Longinidis v Cedefop (Appeal — Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cedefop, European official, unfair dismissal, work contract








C_2011238EN.01001402.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/14





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Longinidis v Cedefop
(Case T-283/08) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence)
2011/C 238/20
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented initially by: P. Giatagantzidis and S. Stavopoulou, later by: P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, assisted by P. Anestis, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Longinidis v Cedefop (not yet published in the ECR) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Pavlos Longinidis to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training in the present instance.






(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, corrigendum OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures ( OJ C 146, 17.5.2011 )
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import, mineral resources, originating product








C_2011199EN.01001401.xml










7.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/14





Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 146 of 17 May 2011
)
2011/C 199/10
As regards the title of the act,
for:

read:
Case T-362/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
Date: 2011-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, administrative procedure, infringement of EU law, offence, pollution control measures








C_2011252EN.01004601.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/46





Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
(Case T-362/11)
2011/C 252/97
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);










—


Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2);










—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011; and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not deciding within the prescribed time-limits on the applicants’ confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to assess, as:






—


the ground for refusal is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention;










—


the information requested qualifies as information relating to emissions into the environment; and










—


there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested by the applicants.










(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 2001 L 145, p. 43)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)