do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-112/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, pay, reassignment








C_2012006EN.01002702.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/27





Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-112/11)
2012/C 6/51
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months in that those statements apply a correction coefficient of 92.3 on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010, while preserving the effect of those statements until the adoption of fresh statements applying a lawful correction coefficient;










—


Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 providing a negative response to complaint 328/11 lodged by the applicant in so far as that decision refuses, inter alia, to grant the applicant access to detailed statistical data concerning economic parity between Brussels and Varese in respect of a number of basic headings, including electricity, gas, solid and liquid heating fuel, health and accommodation;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-557/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Elsid and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, import, principle of proportionality, semi-metal








C_2011370EN.01002901.xml










17.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/29





Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Elsid and Others v Commission
(Case T-557/11)
2011/C 370/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Elsid SA (Titu, Romania), ESD-SIC BV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), ESK-SIC GmbH (Frechen, Germany) and Navarro SIC, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 5934 final of 24 August 2011 rejecting the request for initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon carbide originating in the People’s Republic of China; and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants, stressing incorrect application of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (1), rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging






—


a breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. In parallel, or in the alterative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying a higher standard of evidence than that sufficient to accept a request for an expiry review.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging






—


a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in finding that Chinese exports to the US were not comparable to the products of the Union industry in the EU and concluding erroneously that the lower Chinese export price to the US than the Union industry’s prices in the EU was therefore unlikely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury.










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L343, 22.12.2009, p. 51
Case F-108/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), professional experience








C_2012025EN.01006902.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/69






Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-108/11)
(2012/C 25/133)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10, due to the alleged non fulfilment of the professional experience requirements.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the EPSO decision not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10;










—


order the Commission to take all consequent measures in order to put the applicant in a position similar to the one he would be in, had he been admitted to the competition;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-545/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G. v Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to agriculture








C_2012025EN.01003201.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/32






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G. v Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree
(Case C-545/11)
(2012/C 25/58)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G.

Defendant: Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid to the extent that for the years 2009 to 2012 it provides for a reduction in direct payments in excess of 5 %?










2.


Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.
Case C-540/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 24 October 2011 — Daniel Levy and Carine Sebbag v État Belge, SPF Finances
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Intergovernmental Convention (EU), double taxation








C_2012025EN.01003002.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/30






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 24 October 2011 — Daniel Levy and Carine Sebbag v État Belge, SPF Finances
(Case C-540/11)
(2012/C 25/53)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimants: Daniel Levy and Carine Sebbag

Defendants: État Belge — SPF Finances

Question referred

Is a Member State acting in compliance with Community law, and specifically in compliance with Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC, 57[2] EC and 293 EC, if it undertakes, in a double taxation convention with another Member State, to eliminate the double taxation of dividends resulting from the division of the power of taxation laid down in that convention but subsequently amends its national law in such a way that such double taxation is no longer relieved?
Case F-109/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, Eurostat, report








C_2012006EN.01002602.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/26





Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-109/11)
2012/C 6/48
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009.

Form of order sought







—


Annul part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009; more specifically, the part of the report issued by EUROSTAT for that period;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-543/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Woningstichting Maasdriel, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building, tax exemption, urban construction








C_2012025EN.01003103.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/31






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Woningstichting Maasdriel, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-543/11)
(2012/C 25/56)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(k) of the VAT Directive 2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding in all cases the exemption from VAT of the supply of land which has not been built on which has come into existence by the demolition of existing buildings thereon, demolition which was carried out with a view to the construction of new buildings?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case F-111/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, pay, reassignment








C_2012006EN.01002701.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/27





Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-111/11)
2012/C 6/50
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010;










—


Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaints concerning the correction coefficient applied to Varese;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1075/2011 of 24 October 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, fruit, import (EU), import price, vegetable








L_2011278EN.01000701.xml










25.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 278/7








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1075/2011
of 24 October 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 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 XVI, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 October 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 October 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 157, 15.6.2011, 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 


AL 


57,4 




MA 


51,7 




MK 


58,0 




ZZ 


55,7 




0707 00 05 


AL 


45,6 




MK 


62,2 




TR 


147,7 




ZZ 


85,2 




0709 90 70 


AR 


33,4 




TR 


135,7 




ZZ 


84,6 




0805 50 10 


AR 


63,2 




TR 


66,8 




ZA 


81,1 




ZZ 


70,4 




0806 10 10 


BR 


217,1 




CL 


71,4 




MK 


110,6 




TR 


129,4 




ZA 


67,9 




ZZ 


119,3 




0808 10 80 


AR 


61,9 




BR 


86,4 




CA 


105,4 




CL 


90,0 




CN 


82,6 




NZ 


110,5 




US 


82,8 




ZA 


100,1 




ZZ 


90,0 




0808 20 50 


CN 


49,9 




TR 


127,5 




ZZ 


88,7 






(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 C-542/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Codirex Expeditie BV
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs transit, customs warehouse








C_2012025EN.01003102.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/31






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Codirex Expeditie BV
(Case C-542/11)
(2012/C 25/55)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Codirex Expeditie BV

Question referred

At what point in time are non-Community goods assignated a customs-approved treatment or use within the meaning of Article 50 (1) of the Community Customs Code where goods with the status of goods ‘in temporary storage’ are declared for placing under the external Community customs transit procedure?


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
Case F-110/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, pay, reassignment








C_2012006EN.01002603.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/26





Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-110/11)
2012/C 6/49
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months to the extent that they contain no correction of the adjustment of remunerations taking account of the correction coefficient for their place of employment.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months:










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-213/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Dismissal — Breakdown of trust — Statement of reasons — Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, dismissal, proof, servant (EU)








C_2011347EN.01002903.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/29





Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2011 — P v Parliament
(Case T-213/10) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Dismissal - Breakdown of trust - Statement of reasons - Distortion of the evidence)
2011/C 347/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: P (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: initially S. Seyr and R. Ignătescu, then S. Seyr, agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 in Case F-89/08 P v Parliament, requesting that that judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Ms P to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Case C-544/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, legal domicile, tax exemption, tax on employment income








C_2012025EN.01003104.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/31






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen
(Case C-544/11)
(2012/C 25/57)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

Question referred

Is a legal provision compatible with Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (in the version of the Nice Treaty signed on 26 February 2001; now Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) if it makes a tax exemption for income of an employee who is taxable in Germany dependent on the employer being established in Germany, but does not provide for such exemption if the employer is established in another EU Member State?
Case T-552/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission
Date: 2011-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, reimbursement of aid, research programme








C_2012006EN.01001902.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/19





Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission
(Case T-552/11)
2012/C 6/36
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


uphold the present action;










—


annul the contested debit note;










—


take account of the applicant’s submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 17 June 2011 are to be refunded;










—


annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;










—


set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years;










—


hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision which is contained in debit note No 3241109207 of 9 September 2011 and relates to the applicant’s participation in the ‘WARD IN HAND’ research project No 510743.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:






—


misuse of power by the European Commission, in so far as it proceeded to a legally fictional equation of the non-delivery of time sheets with the non-delivery of items to be delivered, as conduct in breach of contract;










—


absence of a statement of reasons in the contested debit note and infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons;










—


failure to take account of the evidence;










—


error of law and failure to state reasons, because the defendant took no account of the applicant’s actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons;










—


infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, because the defendant wrongfully failed to pay the applicant the final instalment of the programme and nullified all its research work, five years after the programme’s closure.