do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-349/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 97/81/EC — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work — Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, part-time employment, work contract, work schedule








C_2012109EN.01000502.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/5





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL
(Case C-349/11) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/81/EC - Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)
2012/C 109/09
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Auditeur du travail

Defendant: Yangwei SPRL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9) — Permissibility of national legislation requiring an employer to draw up documents recording departures from work schedules as well as to keep and publicise the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued. It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.
In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011
Case T-644/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: infringement of EU law, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment








C_2012065EN.01001401.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/14





Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission
(Case T-644/11 P)
2012/C 65/27
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Eugène Emile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant clams that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10;










—


consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:






—


annul the appellant’s 2008 Career Development Report;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs;














—


order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(8) of Annex I to the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the European Union Staff Regulations, distortion of the file and infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging failure by the reporting officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc committee.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and of the burden of proof, and also infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons in its examination of the plea alleging unlawful appeals procedure and failure to state reasons in the appraisal report challenged at first instance.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the obligation to state reasons and manifest error of assessment, and also infringement of Article 4(6) of the general rules for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging a failure to take account of the work performed by the appellant in the interest of the institution.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and disregard of the burden of proof and infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the reporting officer’s assessment of whether or not the appellant had complied with the alleged reorganisation of the department being tested since 2008.
Case C-635/11: Action brought on 9 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, international merger, legal domicile, national implementing measure, worker participation








C_2012058EN.01000402.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/4





Action brought on 9 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-635/11)
2012/C 58/05
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that, in the case of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, the employees of establishments of that company that are situated in other Member States have the same entitlement to exercise participation rights as is enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under subparagraph (b) of Article 16(2) (introductory sentence and second part of the sentence) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies; (1)











—


order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

It is apparent from Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC that the national law of the Member State in which the company resulting from the cross-border merger has its registered office must provide that employees of establishments of the company resulting from the cross-border merger that are situated in other Member States are to have the same entitlement to exercise participation rights in the company resulting from the cross-border merger as is enjoyed by those employees employed in the Member State in which that new company has its registered office.
Consequently, the national law transposing Directive 2005/56 must provide for all the situations envisaged in Article 16(2) of that directive.
This has not been the case in the Netherlands.


(1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.