Vino de la ora 20:00, la Sala Radio din Bucuresti sa vezi noua generatie de muzicieni romani intr-un concert extraordinar de muzica clasica! Intrarea la eveniment va fi gratuita, pe baza invitatiilor pe care le veti putea procura online sau telefonic!

Mai multe pe: www.fundatiaconstantindumitru.ro

Rezervari online: http://fundatiaconstantindumitru.ro/bilete/

Va aștept cu drag!

Ovidiu Ioan Dumitru

Președinte, Fundația Constantin Dumitru

Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d’appel de Liège – Belgium.

Freedom of movement for workers – Competition rules applicable to undertakings – Professional footballers – Sporting rules on the transfer of players requiring the new club to pay a fee to the old club – Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match.

Case C-415/93.

QUESTIONS:

1. Which are the features of preliminary ruling?
2. Which are the four freedoms of the European Union?
3. What does free movement of workers among  the member states mean?

Sala „Ion Voicu” a Colegiului Naţional de Muzică „George Enescu” din Bucureşti a găzduit joi, 26 aprilie, primul concert din seria „Concertele Fundaţiei Constantin Dumitru”, eveniment prin care fundaţia şi-a propus să susţină tineri muzicieni talentaţi.

Concertul a cuprins lucrări de P. Mascagni, W.A. Mozart, B. Debussy, Fr. Chopin, Carols Gardel şi J. Massenet şi a fost susţinut de Orchestra Colegiului Naţional de Muzică „George Enescu”, dirijor Gheorghe Iliuţă, precum şi de elevi ai colegiilor „George Enescu” şi „Dinu Lipatti” din Capitală. Evenimentul a beneficiat de participarea lui Mircea Dumitrescu, câştigător al Concursului Naţional „Victor Giuleanu” 2012, la secţiunea Pian, şi a Mădălinei Andreea Barbu, studentă an II la Master la Universitatea Naţională de Muzică Bucureşti.

Acest concert face parte din proiectul „Acces liber la muzică”, iniţiat de Fundaţia Constantin Dumitru în decembrie 2011. Prin acest proiect, fundaţia şi-a propus să organizeze concerte de muzică clasică gratuite pentru public, urmărind ca astfel arta muzicală să devină parte din viaţa cât mai multor persoane. „Acces liber la muzică” este un demers cultural de muzică clasică dedicat atât melomanilor, dar mai ales publicului amator, în care s-au implicat muzicieni profesionişti şi amatori.

Fundația Constatin Dumitru are placerea sa va anunțe că joi, 26 aprilie, va organiza un concert de muzica clasică, în parteneriat cu Colegiul National de Muzica „George Enescu”, concert ce va fi sustinut de Orchestra Colegiului, precum şi de laureaţii Concursului Național „Victor Giuleanu”.

Concertul va avea loc la Sala „Ion Voicu” de la Colegiul de Muzica „George Enescu”, incepand cu orele 18.00.

Este primul nostru concert din seria „Concertele Fundatiei Constantin Dumitru”, asadar ne-am bucura daca ne veti fi alaturi!

Colegiul National de Muzica „George Enescu” se afla pe strada Gheorghe Manu, nr. 30, sector 1.

Concertul va dura aproximativ o ora.

The European Council did not exist when the Community came into being on 1 January 1958. The European Council was created following a meeting of heads of government in Paris in 1974 and received formal recognition in the Single European Act.

The role of the European Council is described as being to ‘provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development… [and to] … define the general political guidelines‘. It does not exercise legislative functions.

It is, essentially, a political forum in which the heads of government, meet  twice every six months, accompanied by their foreign ministers, thrash out the political agenda for the European Union in the ensuing months and years. When the situation so requires, the President will convene a special meeting of the European Council.

The meetings are often referred to as European Summits. General programmes worked at in outline at these meetings are taken up and fleshed out by the European Commission and may, in some cases, form the background to a whole draft of legislation or more detailed policy making in such areas as monetary policy and the measures necessary to complete the single market. It is here also that discussions will take place on matters which fall within what before The Treaty of Lisbon were the second and third pillars of the European Union i.e. Common Foreign and Security Policy; and Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.

The subject matter of European Council meetings depends on a number of different factors but the following are relevant in determining what is discussed. The work of the European Council will depend, to some extent, on the political issues which currently preoccupy a majority of the heads of government. These might involve, for example, a foreign policy crisis in the Balkans, a run on the national currencies in the financial markets, or a major environmental disaster. To illustrate this point, the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council on 12 and 13 December 2002 considered the crises in Iraq and the Middle East; two declarations were adopted.

Other items will appear regularly on the European Council’s agenda, such as the general economic situation, the level of unemployment, and a review of the development of the single market. The Commission will quite often be involved in bringing forward new policy initiatives, usually with some support from the head of government of the state which holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Major initiatives have started in this way, such as those leading to the adoption of the Social Charter at the Strasbourg Summit in 1989, and the programmes that led up to the signing of the TED in 1992, the ToA in 1997 and the ToN in 2000.

As we shall see, it is the task of the European Commission to carry forward the Community towards its goals as set out in the Treaty, but the European Council has proved a valuable means for ensuring that measures proposed by the Commission are actually approved. Once they have been accepted by the European Council they are much more likely to be accepted by the Council of Ministers since they will, in principle at least, have been accepted by the heads of the governments of which the Ministers are part.

Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council are taken by consensus. In some cases, it adopts decisions by unanimity or by qualified majority, depending on what the Treaty provides for.

The President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, is elected for a once-renewable term of two and a half years. The European Council elects its President by qualified majority.

Although the European Council is, under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, a separate institution of the EU, it does not have its own administration. The administrative support for both the European Council and its president is provided by the General Secretary of the Council of the European Union. The president does have, however, his own private office (cabinet) of close advisers.

Prima sesiune de acordare a Burselor Constantin Dumitru s-a adresat studenţilor de la următoarele facultăţi:

◦Facultatea de Constructii Civile, Industriale şi Agricole (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcții București)

◦Facultatea de Instalaţii (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcții București)

◦Facultatea Administrarea Afacerilor cu predare in limbi straine (Academia de Științe Economice)

◦Facultatea de Drept (Universitatea din București)

Câştigătorii primei sesiuni sunt:

1. ALEXANDRU COSTIN HERNEST de la Facultatea de Constructii Civile, Industriale şi Agricole (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcții București)
2. AURELIAN VELICU de la Facultatea de Instalaţii (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcții București)
3. SÎNZAIANA-DIMITRIA PURCARIU de la Facultatea Administrarea Afacerilor cu predare in limbi straine (Academia de Științe Economice)
4. ANDREEA-IULIANA NICĂ de la Facultatea de Drept (Universitatea din București)

Mulţumim tuturor care au aplicat la Bursa Constantin Dumitru! Vă aşteptăm dosarele şi la viitoarele sesiuni de acordare a burselor, ce vor demara imediat după începerea anului universitar 2012-2013.

Mult succes în continuare!

Spre deosebire sesiunile de comuncări din alţi ani, în 2012 au fost susţinute mai multe lucrări, numărul acestora ajungând la 70. Această sesiune de comunicări le demonstrează studenţilor că fără perseverenţă, fără efort susţinut, nu se poate câştiga nimic, realitate pe care ei nu au cum s-o experimenteze în liceu.

„Organizez Sesiunea de Comunicări a studenţilor pentru Departamentul de Drept de mai mulţi ani şi pot să vă spun că noile generaţii mă surprind de la an la an. De exemplu, spre finalul sesiunii, când studenţii şi-au dat seama că trebuie să-şi scurteze prezentările pentru a se încadra în orar, au renunţat imediat la detaliile din prezentări şi ne-au spus pe scurt subiectul, exemplificând numai la cerere. Vreau să spun că mă surprinde capacitatea lor de a se adapta foarte repede cerinţelor, capacitate pe care noi nu o aveam la vârsta lor”, a afirmat Silvia Cristea, organizatoarea Sesiunii ştiinţifice studenţeşti pentru Departamentul de Drept din ASE.

Premiile au fost oferite studenţilor de preşedintele fundaţiei, Ovidiu Dumitru, precum şi de conf. univ. dr. Silvia Cristea.

„Fiind avocat, găsesc firesc să mă implic în activităţile studenţilor la drept, să-i stimulez să se înscrie la cât mai multe concursuri, să se familiarizeze cu competiţia şi să se perfecţioneze în continuu. Susţinerea unor astfel de competiţii se înscrie în programul „Calitate în educaţie”, derulat de Fundaţia Ovidiu Ioan Dumitru, un program prin care noi ne-am propus să încurajăm şi să susţinem financiar, acolo unde este cazul, elevii şi studenţii care excelează într-un domeniu”, a declarat Ovidiu Dumitru, preşedintele fundaţiei.

Câştigătorii Premiilor oferite de Fundaţia Ovidiu Ioan Dumitru

SECŢIUNEA DREPTUL UNIUNII EUROPENE

Premiul de excelenţă

1. Titlu lucrare: „Aspecte practice privind procedura de infringement cu o privire specială asupra cauzei C-387/97, Comisia vs Grecia”

Autori: Căldare Elena Roxana, Cazan Alexandra

Anul de studiu: II, zi,  gr. 624

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Drd. Radu Pătru

1. Titlu lucrare: „Reglementarea concurenţei în Uniunea Europeană“

Autor: Savin Alexandra

Anul de studiu: III, zi, Seria C, gr. 951

Facultate: REI

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

Premiul I

Titlu lucrare: „Concurenţa şi drepturile consumatorilor în Uniunea Europeană”

Autori: Duşa Silvia, Negură Ana Maria

Anul de studiu: III, zi, Seria A

Facultate: REI

Coordonator ştiinţific: Prof. univ. dr. Olimpiu Crauciuc

Premiul II

Titlu lucrare: „Consideraţiuni privind rolul Parlamentelor naţionale în Uniunea Europeană, după Tratatul de la Lisabona”

Autor : Alexandrescu Viorel

Anul de studiu: II, zi, gr. 623

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Drd. Radu Pătru

Premiul III

Titlu lucrare: „Proiecte Europene”

Autor: Adelina Ciobanu

Anul de studiu: II, zi, Seria A, gr. 625

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

Menţiuni

1. Titlu lucrare: „Deficitul bugetar în condiţiile Pactului de Stabilitate şi Creştere”

Autor: Tănăsoaica Andreea

Anul de studiu: III, zi, Seria C, gr. 949

Facultate: REI

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

1. Titlu lucrare: „Competenţele Comisiei Europene”

Autori : Gulie Daniela, Mazilu Anca Mădălina

Anul de studiu: II, zi, Seria C, gr. 632

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

1. Titlu lucrare: „Ungaria vs. UE: Conflicte în alinierea dreptului naţional la Dreptul Uniunii Europene”

Autori: Buzăţel Cristina Elena, Buciu Raluca Elena

Anul de studiu: II, zi, Seria A, gr. 624

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

SECŢIUNEA DREPTUL AFACERILOR ŞI DREPT SOCIETAR

Premiul de excelenţă

Titlu lucrare: „Noţiunea de patrimoniu în cadrul unui SRL unipersonal”

Autor: Mihalache Roxana Alexandra

Anul de studiu: I, zi, Seria C, gr. 613

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Conf. univ. dr. Silvia Lucia Cristea

Menţiuni

1. Titlu lucrare: „Societatea europeană pe acţiuni”

Autori: Guţă Jenica Denisa, Hriban Andreea Mihaela

Anul de studiu: I, zi, Seria B, gr. 1708

Facultate: MARKETING

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

1. Titlu lucrare: „Evaziunea fiscală”

Autori: Prunaru Claudia, Rizoiu Ileana

Anul de studiu: I, zi, Seria D, gr. 618

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

1. Titlu lucrare: „Încheierea contractelor de asigurare în dreptul român”

Autori: Ivan Elena Angelica, Iordache Cătălina Adeline

Anul de studiu: I, zi, Seria C, gr. 612

Facultate: CIG

Coordonator ştiinţific: Lect. univ. dr. Nely Militaru

1. Who can file an action at The European Court of Justice?
2. Which are the  features of an action filed before the European Court of Justice?
3. What means that individuals have to prove a direct and individual interest in order to take an action in front of the European Court of Justice?

Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1963. – Plaumann & Co. v Commission of the European Economic Community. – Case 25-62. European Court reports
French edition Page 00199
Dutch edition Page 00207
German edition Page 00213
Italian edition Page 00197
English special edition Page 00095
Danish special edition Page 00411
Greek special edition Page 00939
Portuguese special edition Page 00279
Spanish special edition Page 00409
Swedish special edition Page 00181
Finnish special edition Page 00181

Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

Keywords

++++

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY – DECISION – CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 189; CF . SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT IN JOINED CASES 16 AND 17/62, REC . 1962 )

2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY – PROCEEDINGS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED ‘TO ANOTHER PERSON’ – SCOPE OF THAT EXPRESSION – BROAD INTERPRETATION

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY – RIGHT OF ACTION OF INTERESTED PARTIES – NON-RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 ) 4 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY – PROCEEDINGS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED ‘TO ANOTHER PERSON’ – DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

5 . PROCEDURE – REQUEST FOR DECLARATION WITH REGARD TO POSSIBLE FUTURE DAMAGE FORMULATED IN THE APPLICATION – ACTION FOR COMPENSATION FORMULATED IN THE REPLY – ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS ACTION, CONSIDERED AS AN AMPLIFICATION OF THE REQUEST FOR DECLARATION WITH REGARD TO DAMAGE

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 38 ( 1)(D )

6 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY – MEASURE NOT ANNULLED – LACK OF BASIS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION NULLIFYING THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF THAT MEASURE

Summary

1 . A MEASURE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A DECISION IF IT REFERS TO A PARTICULAR PERSON AND BINDS THAT PERSON ALONE .

2 . THE WORDS AND THE NATURAL MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY WHICH ALLOWS AN INDIVIDUAL TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DECISIONS ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON WHICH ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE FORMER JUSTIFY THE BROADEST INTERPRETATION .

3 . THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY REGARDING THE RIGHT OF ACTION OF INTERESTED PARTIES MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED RESTRICTIVELY; WHERE THE TREATY IS SILENT A LIMITATION IN THIS RESPECT MAY NOT BE PRESUMED .

4 . PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

5 . IF AN APPLICANT INCLUDES IN HIS APPLICATION A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION WITH REGARD TO THE DAMAGE WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE CONTESTED MEASURE AND SPECIFIES IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL PROCEDURES THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT REQUEST AND SETS A VALUE ON THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE, THE CONCLUSIONS OF AN APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FORMULATED IN THE REPLY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN AMPLIFICATION OF THOSE CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND THEREFORE AS ADMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 38 ( 1 ) ( D ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

6 . AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ANNULLED CANNOT OF ITSELF CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION INFLICTING DAMAGE UPON THOSE WHOM IT AFFECTS . THE LATTER CANNOT THEREFORE CLAIM DAMAGES BY REASON OF THAT MEASURE .

Parties

IN CASE 25/62

PLAUMANN & CO ., HAMBURG, REPRESENTED BY HARALD DITGES, ADVOCATE OF THE COLOGNE BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF MR AUDRY, FEDERATION DES COMMERCANTS, 8 AVENUE DE L’ARSENAL, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY HUBERT EHRING, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY ERNST STEINDORFF, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL SERVICE OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR :

-ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION N . SIII 03079 OF THE COMMISSION OF 22 MAY 1962, REFUSING TO AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO SUSPEND IN PART CUSTOMS DUTIES APPLICABLE TO ‘MANDARINS AND CLEMENTINES, FRESH’ IMPORTED FROM THIRD COUNTRIES;

-PAYMENT OF 39 414.01 DM COMPENSATION;

Grounds

I – ON THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT

ADMISSIBILITY

UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY ‘ANY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY …INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A DECISION …WHICH, ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF…A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON, IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE FORMER ‘. THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE WORDS ‘OTHER PERSON’ IN THIS PARAGRAPH DO NOT REFER TO MEMBER STATES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS SOVEREIGN AUTHORITIES AND THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT THEREFORE BRING AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT AGAINST THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION OR OF THE COUNCIL ADDRESSED TO MEMBER STATES .

HOWEVER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 DOES ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL TO BRING AN ACTION AGAINST DECISIONS ADDRESSED TO ‘ANOTHER PERSON’ WHICH ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE FORMER, BUT THIS ARTICLE NEITHER DEFINES NOR LIMITS THE SCOPE OF THESE WORDS . THE WORDS AND THE NATURAL MEANING OF THIS PROVISION JUSTIFY THE BROADEST INTERPRETATION . MOREOVER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY REGARDING THE RIGHT OF INTERESTED PARTIES TO BRING AN ACTION MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED RESTRICTIVELY . THEREFORE, THE TREATY BEING SILENT ON THE POINT, A LIMITATION IN THIS RESPECT MAY NOT BE PRESUMED .

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS WELL FOUNDED .

THE DEFENDANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS BY ITS VERY NATURE A REGULATION IN THE FORM OF AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION AND THEREFORE ACTION AGAINST IT IS NO MORE AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS THAN IN THE CASE OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURES OF GENERAL APPLICATION .

IT FOLLOWS HOWEVER FROM ARTICLES 189 AND 191 OF THE EEC TREATY THAT DECISIONS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY THE LIMITED NUMBER OF PERSONS TO WHOM THEY ARE ADDRESSED . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A MEASURE CONSTITUTES A DECISION ONE MUST ENQUIRE WHETHER THAT MEASURE CONCERNS SPECIFIC PERSONS . THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND REFUSES TO GRANT IT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM THIRD COUNTRIES . THEREFORE THE CONTESTED MEASURE MUST BE REGARDED AS A DECISION REFERRING TO A PARTICULAR PERSON AND BINDING THAT PERSON ALONE .

UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT AGAINST DECISIONS WHICH, ALTHOUGH ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON, ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM, BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .

IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE SECOND REQUIREMENT OF ADMISSIBILITY IS FULFILLED BECAUSE, IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY THE DECISION, IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO ENQUIRE WHETHER HE IS DIRECTLY CONCERNED .

PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPLICANT IS AFFECTED BY THE DISPUTED DECISION AS AN IMPORTER OF CLEMENTINES, THAT IS TO SAY, BY REASON OF A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WHICH MAY AT ANY TIME BE PRACTISED BY ANY PERSON AND IS NOT THEREFORE SUCH AS TO DISTINGUISH THE APPLICANT IN RELATION TO THE CONTESTED DECISION AS IN THE CASE OF THE ADDRESSEE .

FOR THESE REASONS THE PRESENT ACTION FOR ANNULMENT MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE .

II – ON THE ACTION FOR COMPENSATION

ADMISSIBILITY

THE DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE PRESENT ACTION, HAVING BEEN FORMULATED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE REPLY, WERE SUBMITTED OUT OF TIME AND ARE NOT THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 38 ( 1)(D ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

THE APPLICANT HAS HOWEVER INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION WITH REGARD TO THE DAMAGE WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE CONTESTED DECISION . IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL PROCEDURES, THE APPLICANT SPECIFIED THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS REQUEST AND SET A VALUE ON THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE . THEREFORE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ACTION FOR COMPENSATION MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A PERMISSIBLE AMPLIFICATION OF THOSE CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION . THEY ARE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE 38 ( 1)(D ).

SUBSTANCE

THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE APPLICANT ASK FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO THE CUSTOMS DUTIES AND TURNOVER TAX WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD TO PAY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DECISION AGAINST WHICH IT HAS AT THE SAME TIME INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MUST BE DECLARED THAT THE DAMAGE ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED BY THE APPLICANT ISSUES FROM THIS DECISION AND THAT THE ACTION FOR COMPENSATION IN FACT SEEKS TO SET ASIDE THE LEGAL EFFECTS ON THE APPLICANT OF THE CONTESTED DECISION .

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CONTESTED DECISION HAS NOT BEEN ANNULLED . AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ANNULLED CANNOT OF ITSELF CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION INFLICTING DAMAGE UPON THOSE WHOM IT AFFECTS . THE LATTER CANNOT THEREFORE CLAIM DAMAGES BY REASON OF THAT MEASURE . THE COURT CANNOT BY WAY OF AN ACTION FOR COMPENSATION TAKE STEPS WHICH WOULD NULLIFY THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF A DECISION WHICH, AS STATED, HAS NOT BEEN ANNULLED .

THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .

Decision on costs

UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

THE APPLICANT HAVING FAILED IN ITS ACTION MUST BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . DISMISSES THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION AS UNFOUNDED;

3 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS .

Programul Invatare continua, oportunitati nelimitate continuă si anul acesta si are drept scop stimularea studenţilor în vederea obţinerii unor rezultate meritorii în cadrul sistemului universitar românesc, precum şi oferirea unui acces mai larg la proiecte şi programe naţionale şi internaţionale.

Programul se adresează studenţilor cu performanţe şcolare, înscrişi în anii II, III sau IV (în funcţie de instituţie) la cursuri la zi din cadrul următoarelor facultăţi:

• Facultatea de Administrarea Afacerilor cu predare în limbi străine a Academiei de Studii Economice din Bucureşti
• Facultatea de Drept a Universităţii din Bucureşti

• Facultatea de Construcţii Civile, Industriale şi Agricole a Universităţii Tehnice de Construcţii din Bucureşti
• Facultatea de Instalaţii a Universităţii Tehnice de Construcţii din Bucureşti

• Facultăţii de Hidrotehnică
• Facultati de Căi Ferate, Drumuri, Poduri
• Facultatii de Arte Plastice
• Facultății de Arte Decorative și Design
• Facultății de Interpretare Muzicală

Pentru ca studentii de la Facultatea de Administrarea Afacerilor sa fie admişi în program,  trebuie să fie înmatriculaţi în anul universitar curent ca studenţi în anul II sau III la cursuri de zi ai Facultăţii de Administrarea Afacerilor cu predare în limbi străine a Academiei de Studii Economice din Bucureşti (indiferent de secţie) şi trebuie să îndeplinească simultan două condiţii:

- să fie integralişti
- să aibă o medie pe ultimul an de studiu cel puţin egală cu 8.50

Evaluarea candidaţilor şi modalitatea de atribuire a acestei burse se bazează pe punctajul obţinut de fiecare student parcurgând următoarea structură:

1. 10 puncte se acordă datorită meritului de a nu fi înregistrat restanţe pe parcursul primei sesiuni a anului universitar 2011-2012

2. 30 puncte se acordă ca urmare a obţinerii unei medii a anilor universitari anteriori cel puţin egală cu 8.50

3. 20 puncte datorită unei bogate activităţi extracurriculare (sesiuni de comunicări, participare la conferinţe, workshop-uri, internship-uri, concursuri, articole publicate, schimburi de experienţă)

4. 30 puncte se acordă pentru realizarea unui unei scrisori-eseu (maximum 3 pagini) în care solicitantul să descrie cum îl poate ajuta această bursă să se perfecţioneze

5. 10 puncte dacă studentul are o situaţie financiară modestă (media venitului lunar pe membru de familie în ultimele trei luni inferioară pragului de 800 RON pe lună)

Evaluarea dosarelor se va realiza de către avocatul Ovidiu Ioan Dumitru, iniţiatorul bursei, şi de reprezentanţi ai Fundaţiei Constantin Dumitru.

Înscrierile au loc în perioada 1-31 martie 2012.

În această perioadă, aşteptăm dosarele (prin poştă: str. Ion Neculce, 74, sector 1, Bucureşti, cod poştal 011256, sau pe email: office@fundatiaconstantindumitru.ro) cu următoarele documente:

- CV-ul solicitantului
- Copie a actului de identitate
- Situaţia şcolară a anilor universitari anteriori, obţinută de la secretariat
- Scrisoarea-eseu
- Documente care să ateste activitatea extracurriculară
- Acte privind situaţia veniturilor (a solicitantului sau a tutorilor acestuia)

1. Failure to consult the E.P., where required by the Treaty, is a breach of an essential procedural requirement.

Roquette Freres v. Council(Case 138/79) 1980

Facts: The Council adopted a regulation before it had received the opinion of the E.P. under Article 34(3) It was challenged by a producer affected by the measure.

Decision ECJ: Consultation under Article 34 (3) is the means whereby the E.P. participates in the legislative process of the E.U Failure to consult was a breach of an essential procedural requirement, as a result of which the measure concerned was void.

Commentary: The ECJ stated in Roquette Freres that consultation “reflects at EU level the fundamental democratic principle that the peoples should take part in the exercise of power through the intermediary of an intermediate assembly”.

2. The E.P. may take action in the ECJ to protect its prerogative.

E.P. v. Council (Re Students’ Rights) (Case C-295/90)

Facts: The Commission proposed a directive on residence rights for students undertaking vocational courses based on Article 7(2)(now repealed) of the Treaty. This basis would have involved the use of the co-operation procedure, with qualified majority voting. After the E.P.’s opinion had been received the draft was submitted to the Council which amended the legal basis to Article 308, the general power for which a unanimous vote was required.

Decisison ECJ: The E.P. may bring actions to safeguard its prerogatives.

Commentary:  Although the E.P. was not at that time expressly covered by (old) Article 173, the fact that the Council’s action deprived the E.P. of a second reading was enough to justify a challenge. This right, where there is a threat to the prerogative of the E.P., was expressly provided in the revised wording of Article 173 following amendment by the Maastricht Treaty.

3. If the Council or Commission fails to act, in infringement of the Treaty, the E.P. may bring an action in the ECJ: Article 232 (ex 175).

E.P. v. Council (Case 13/83) 1985

Facts: The E.P. sought a declaration that the Council had infringed the Treaty by failing to adopt a Common Transport Policy. The Council objected, claiming that the E.P. lacked competence to bring an action under Article 232.

Decision ECJ: The E.P. had capacity to bring an action under Article 232 and had observed the conditions of that provision in bringing the action. The action was upheld in part, but rejected where the obligation was too vague to be enforceable.

The European Commission

1. Where the Treaty confers a specific task on the Commission, it also confers on it the powers which are indispensable to carry out the task.

2. The Commission shall have the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States in the social field. To this end the Commission shall act in close contact with Member States by making studies, delivering opinions and arranging consultations both on problems arising at national level and on those of concern to international organisations: Article 137 (ex 118).

Germany- France, Netherlands Denmark and the United Kingdom v. Commission (Joined Cases 281, 283 and 287/85) 1987

Facts: Germany and the other applicant states sought annulment under Article 230 (ex 173) of Decision 85/381 in relation to the migration policy of non-member countries. The challenge was brought on the grounds that such a policy was outside the social field and that the arrangement of consultation under Article 137 (ex 118) did not empower the Commission .to adopt binding measures.

Decisison ECJ (1) The promotion of the integration into the workforce of non-member countries must be held to be within the social field within the meaning of Article 137 (ex 118), in so far as it is linked to employment.

(2) The promotion of cultural integration goes beyond the social field but may be justified under Article 137(2) (ex 118(2» (power to arrange consultations).

Commentary: The ECJ exercised care in this judgement to make it clear that the Commission’s power to take binding decisions (not explicitly provided in Article 137 (ex 118(2)) is limited to procedural matters.