do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-179/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2012 by The Dow Chemical Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08: The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission
Date: 2012-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition, fine, fixing of prices, joint venture, market-sharing agreement, mitigating circumstances, restriction on competition, synthetic rubber








C_2012184EN.01000502.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/5





Appeal brought on 16 April 2012 by The Dow Chemical Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08: The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission
(Case C-179/12 P)
2012/C 184/09
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: The Dow Chemical Company (represented by: D. Schroeder and R. Polley, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant;










—


Annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant;










—


In the alternative, set aside the General Court's judgment in case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to substantially reduce the fine imposed on it;










—


Substantially reduce the fine imposed on it;










—


Order the Commission to pay the Dow Chemical Company's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and










—


Take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal contains two pleas. According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law as concerns the imputation of the infringement to the Appellant. Since the Appellant did not exercise decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers (‘
DDE
’), a joint venture with EI du Pont de Nemours and Company, it did not participate in the infringement committed by DDE. The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the related concepts of a single economic unit, of a single undertaking and of the exercise of decisive influence. According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law as concerns the increase of the Appellant's fine by 10 % for deterrence. The General Court erred in law by holding that the Commission did not breach the principle of equal treatment in this respect.
Case T-341/10: Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-04-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, economic sanctions, sports body








C_2012174EN.01002302.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/23





Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission
(Case T-341/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - No challengeable act - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 174/38
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: F91 Diddeléng (Dudelange, Luxembourg); Julien Bonnetaud (Yutz, France); Thomas Gruszczynski (Amnéville, France); Rainer Hauck (Maxdorf, Germany); Stéphane Martine (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg); Grégory Molnar (Moyeuvre-Grande, France); and Yann Thibout (Algrange, France) (represented by L. Misson, C. Delrée and G. Ernes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by G. Rozet and P. Van Nuffel, agents

Intervener in support of the defendant: Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF) (Mondercange, Luxembourg) (represented initially by K. Daly, solicitor, and D. Keane, SC, then by K. Daly)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 June 2010 to take no action in regard to the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), seeking annulment of rules of the FLF infringing Articles 39 and 81 EC, and an application for any appropriate order.

Operative part of the order

The General Court orders:






1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


F91 Diddeléng, Julien Bonnetaud, Thomas Gruszczynski, Rainer Hauck, Stéphane Martine, Grégory Molnar and Yann Thibout shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.










3.


The Fédération luxembourgeoise de football (FLF) shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Joined Cases T-40/07 P-REV and T-62/07 P-REV: Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Procedure — Application for revision — New fact — Absence thereof — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-04-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, bonus payment, equal pay, gender equality, interpretation of the law, part-time employment, seniority, wage determination








C_2012174EN.01002103.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/21





Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
(Joined Cases T-40/07 P-REV and T-62/07 P-REV) (1)

(Procedure - Application for revision - New fact - Absence thereof - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 174/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Jose António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Boury, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)

Re:

Application for revision of the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2009 in Joined Cases T-40/07 P and T-62/07 P de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho, not yet reported in the ECR.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
Case C-176/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouche-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT)
Date: 2012-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: work contract, worker information, workers' representation








C_2012184EN.01000501.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouche-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT)
(Case C-176/12)
2012/C 184/08
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association de médiation sociale

Defendants: Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouche-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT)

Questions referred







1.


May the fundamental right of workers to information and consultation, recognised by Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and as specified in the provisions of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, (1) be invoked in a dispute between private individuals in order to assess the compliance of a national measure implementing the directive?










2.


In the affirmative, may those same provisions be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision which excludes from the calculation of staff numbers in the undertaking, in particular to determine the legal thresholds for putting into place bodies representing staff, workers with the following contracts: apprentice, contrat initiative-emploi, contrat d’accompagnement dans l’emploi and contrat de professionnalisation?






(1)  Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).