do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-44/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, motherhood, working conditions








C_2012109EN.01000601.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt
(Case C-44/12)
2012/C 109/10
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Andrius Kulikauskas

Defendants: Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

Questions referred







1.


With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC) (1), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of a woman's (‘B's’) pregnancy?










2.


With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of the pregnancy of a woman (‘B’) who is (i) his partner, or (ii) otherwise associated with him?






(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
OJ L 204, p. 23
Case C-328/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Gimv Nederland BV
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial capital, trade-mark law








C_2012133EN.01002003.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/20





Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Gimv Nederland BV
(Case C-328/11 P) (1)

2012/C 133/38
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case C-43/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cross-frontier data flow, disclosure of information, exchange of information, road safety, traffic offence








C_2012098EN.01001801.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/18





Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
(Case C-43/12)
2012/C 98/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn and R. Troosters, Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences; (1)











—


declare that the effects of Directive 2011/82/EU are to be regarded as definitive;










—


order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks to bring an action for annulment against Directive 2011/82/EU. The Commission disputes the legal basis chosen. It claims that Article 87(2) TFEU is not the appropriate legal basis, as the directive seeks to introduce a mechanism for the exchange of information between Member States that covers road traffic offences, regardless of their administrative or criminal nature. Article 87 refers only to police cooperation between the competent authorities in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences. In the opinion of the Commission, the proper legal basis is Article 91(1) TFEU. The purpose of the directive is to improve road safety, which is one of the common transport policy areas expressly provided for in Article 91(1)(c).


(1)  OJ 2011 L 288, p. 1.
Case T-40/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Europol, consortium, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, transparency in decision-making








C_2012109EN.01001801.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/18





Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
(Case T-40/12)
2012/C 109/40
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and










—


order EUROPOL to pay the applicants’ entire costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU and put forward the following argument, which encompasses three considerations:






 


First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants.










 


Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency.










 


Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 75/2012 of 30 January 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [ "Miód z Sejneńszczyny/Łoździejszczyzny" / "Seinų/Lazdijų krašto medus" (PDO)]
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Lithuania, Poland, designation of origin, honey, product designation








L_2012027EN.01000301.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 27/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 75/2012
of 30 January 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ["Miód z Sejneńszczyny/Łoździejszczyzny"/"Seinų/Lazdijų krašto medus" (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland and Lithuania’s application to register the name "Miód z Sejneńszczyny/Łoździejszczyzny"/"Seinų/Lazdijų krašto medus" was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 January 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 116, 14.4.2011, p. 15.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.4.   Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.)

POLAND
Miód z Sejneńszczyny/Łoździejszczyzny (PDO)
LITHUANIA
Seinų/Lazdijų krašto medus (PDO)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 76/2012 of 30 January 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Holsteiner Katenschinken / Holsteiner Schinken / Holsteiner Katenrauchschinken / Holsteiner Knochenschinken (PGI)]
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, designation of origin, meat product, pigmeat, product designation, smoked product








L_2012027EN.01000501.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 27/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 76/2012
of 30 January 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Holsteiner Katenschinken / Holsteiner Schinken / Holsteiner Katenrauchschinken / Holsteiner Knochenschinken (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany's application to register the name ‧Holsteiner Katenschinken / Holsteiner Schinken / Holsteiner Katenrauchschinken/ Holsteiner Knochenschinken‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 January 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 109, 8.4.2011, p. 6.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

GERMANY
Holsteiner Katenschinken / Holsteiner Schinken / Holsteiner Katenrauchschinken / Holsteiner Knochenschinken (PGI)
Case T-43/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: economic sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012080EN.01002502.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/25





Action brought on 30 January 2012 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
(Case T-43/12)
2012/C 80/43
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Mohamad Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


allow the present action to be dealt with under an expedited procedure;










—


annul, in so far as these measures relate to the applicants:






—


Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the decisions cited at point 17 above;










—


Regulation No 442/2011, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the regulations cited at point 18 above;










—


Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP, in accordance with point 19 above;










—


Regulation No 36/2012, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, in accordance with point 20 above;














—


annul the Council’s decision contained in its letter to the applicants of 21 December 2011, in so far as it maintains their inclusion in the lists at issue;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council.
Case C-516/10: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2012-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, acquisition of property, tenant farming








C_2012109EN.01000803.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/8





Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-516/10) (1)

2012/C 109/16
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.