do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-185/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Incorrect and incomplete transposition)
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovenia, freedom to provide services, insurance company, national implementing measure








C_2012073EN.01000601.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/6





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-185/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC - Incorrect and incomplete transposition)
2012/C 73/09
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K.-Ph. Wojcik, M. Žebre and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: A. Vran, agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union — Infringement of Article 8(3) of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3) and of Articles 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive; OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by incorrectly and incompletely transposing into national law First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 November 2005 and Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/68, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(3) of Directive 73/239 and Articles 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49;










2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Slovenia each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case T-397/11: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012 — Symfiliosi v FRA
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, administrative transparency, award of contract, public contract








C_2012080EN.01002605.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/26





Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012 — Symfiliosi v FRA
(Case T-397/11) (1)

2012/C 80/48
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012021EN.01000101.xml










26.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 January 2012
2012/C 21/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2942




JPY


Japanese yen


101,02




DKK


Danish krone


7,4343




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83205




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8506




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2075




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6825




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,371




HUF


Hungarian forint


298,38




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6978




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2966




RON


Romanian leu


4,3492




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3660




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2367




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3114




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0443




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6064




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6447




KRW


South Korean won


1 461,59




ZAR


South African rand


10,4134




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1713




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5728




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 507,66




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9903




PHP


Philippine peso


55,825




RUB


Russian rouble


39,7886




THB


Thai baht


40,897




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2830




MXN


Mexican peso


17,0297




INR


Indian rupee


65,0270






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-37/12 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Saupiquet against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs drawback, customs duties, equal treatment, preserved product, sea fish, tariff quota








C_2012089EN.01001701.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/17





Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Saupiquet against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission

(Case C-37/12 P)
2012/C 89/26
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Saupiquet SAS (represented by: R. Ledru, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission;










—


Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought in the present appeal and those sought at first instance by the undertaking Saupiquet;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges, firstly, infringement by the General Court of the fundamental principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and, in consequence, of Articles 2 and 9 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Secondly, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, conferring power and, in particular, exclusive responsibility on the Union in respect of customs matters.
Thirdly, the appellant alleges infringement of Articles 247 and 247a of the Community Customs Code. (1)

Fourthly and lastly, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation No 975/2003. (2)

In fact, contrary to the findings of the General Court, it follows from the combined application of the texts referred to above that the Commission must be held liable for the negative consequences of the closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States and must take the measures necessary to remedy those consequences.


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 of 5 June 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN codes 1604 14 11, 1604 14 18 and 1604 20 70 (OJ 2003 L 141, p. 1).
Case T-90/09: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie v Commission (State aid — Action for annulment — Investment of the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex — Decision finding that there was no State aid — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, investment








C_2012089EN.01002202.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/22





Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie v Commission
(Case T-90/09) (1)

(State aid - Action for annulment - Investment of the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex - Decision finding that there was no State aid - Applicants not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 89/36
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Mojo Concerts BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Beeston, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Noort, C. Wissels, M. de Grave, Y. de Vries and J. Langer, agents); Gemeente Rotterdam (Netherlands) (represented by: J. Feenstra and J. Fanoy, lawyers); and Ahoy’ Rotterdam NV (Rotterdam) (represented initially by M. van der Woude and E. Offers, and subsequently by M. Maas-Cooymans, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6018 final of 21 October 2008 on the investment made by the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex (State aid C 4/2008 (ex N 97/2007, ex CP 91/2007)).

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Gemeente Rotterdam and Ahoy’ Rotterdam NV;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
Case C-38/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 January 2012 — Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, engineering structure, grassland, single payment scheme, utilised agricultural area








C_2012126EN.01000403.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 January 2012 — Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
(Case C-38/12)
2012/C 126/08
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 143b(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for 2008, the sloping sides of dykes and embankments constructed in order to prevent flooding are excluded from the single area payment scheme (SAPS) financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, even in cases where, as at 30 June 2003 and thereafter, the pasture planted on it has been well kept, by being mown regularly and used for grazing, and constitutes area which is maintained in good agricultural condition?










2.


Is Article 143b(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 to be interpreted as meaning that areas that have a secondary agricultural use are excluded from single area payments?






(1)  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) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001; (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).
Case C-192/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Scope of the system of protection — Derogations from the prohibitions laid down by the directive)
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, bird, national implementing measure, protection of animals








C_2012073EN.01000602.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/6





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-192/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Scope of the system of protection - Derogations from the prohibitions laid down by the directive)
2012/C 73/10
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7) — Scope — Protection restricted only to species of birds occurring in national territory — Incorrect definition of the conditions for derogating from the prohibitions laid down by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by not applying national conservation measures to all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States, which are entitled to protection under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and also by not correctly defining the conditions to be complied with in order to be able to derogate from the prohibitions laid down by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of that directive;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
Case C-46/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Denmark), lodged on 26 January 2012 — L.N.
Date: 2012-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: education grant, free movement of persons, residence permit








C_2012109EN.01000701.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Denmark), lodged on 26 January 2012 — L.N.
(Case C-46/12)
2012/C 109/12
Language of the case: Danish

Referring tribunal

Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Appeals Tribunal, the Danish Students’ Grants and Loans Scheme)

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: L.N.

Question referred

Does Article 7(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 24(2), of the Directive on residence) (1) mean that a Member State (host Member State), in the assessment of whether a person must be deemed to be a worker entitled to education assistance, may take account of the fact that the person entered the host Member State for the principal purpose of following a course of study, with the result that the host Member State is not obliged to grant education assistance aid for studies to that person (see aforementioned Article 24(2) of the Directive on residence)?


(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).