Does the principle of effective judicial protection, set out in Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38 (1 ), as interpreted in the light of Article 346(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, require that a judicial body considering an appeal from a decision to exclude a European Union citizen from a member state on grounds of public policy and public security under Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38 ensure that the European Union citizen concerned is informed of the essence of the grounds against him, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities of the Member State and the relevant domestic court, after consideration of the totality of the evidence against the European Union citizen relied upon by the authorities of the Member State, conclude that the disclosure of the essence of the grounds against him would be contrary to the interests of state security?

One possible way of setting up an IPPP, which is, in the Commission's view, suitable for complying with the principles of Community law while at the same time avoiding a double tendering procedure, is as follows: The private partner of the IPPP is selected by means of a procedure, the subject of which is both the public contract or the concession (18 ) which is to be awarded to the future public-private entity, and the private partner's operational contribution to perform these task and/or his contribution to the management of the public-private entity.

Secondly, the applicants contend that the Rules of procedure of the Commission (1 ) have been infringed in that neither have all the members of the Commission deliberated on the content of the two contested letters, nor has there been a proper delegation of powers to the Directorate General of the Commission by virtue of Article 14 of the said rules.

During this period, officials assigned to posts in the new Member States before accession and who are required to remain in service in those States after 1 May 2004 shall benefit, as an exception, from the same financial and material conditions as were applied by the Commission before 1 May 2004 in accordance with Annex X to the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1 ).

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where, in response to a request for information within the meaning of Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision made by the executing judicial authority, the issuing judicial authority, applying its national law and in compliance with the requirements deriving from the concept of ‘same acts’ as enshrined in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, expressly stated that the earlier judgment delivered under its legal system did not constitute a final judgment covering the acts referred to in the arrest warrant issued by it and therefore did not preclude the criminal proceedings referred to in that arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority has no reason to apply, in connection with such a judgment, the ground for mandatory non-execution provided for in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision.

In support of his application, the applicant relies on infringement of: (i) the duty to give reasons, (ii) Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and (iii) of the Rules of Conduct for Appointments to Posts in Grades A1 and A2, approved by the defendant on 18 September 1999, as confirmed and further defined by the Compilation Document on Senior Officials Policy, approved by the defendant on 26 October 2004.

If provisions of a new Schengen act or measure have the effect of no longer allowing Member States to subject compliance with requests for mutual assistance in criminal matters or the recognition of orders from other Member States to search premises and/or seize items of evidence to the conditions set out in Article 51 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, Liechtenstein does not need to implement these provisions in its internal legal order where they apply to search and seizure requests or orders made for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting offences in the field of direct taxation which, if committed in Liechtenstein, would not be punishable under Liechtenstein law with a custodial penalty3 .

By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has transposed partially or incorrectly, or failed to transpose, a number of essential provisions of Directive 96/61. The action, which concerns the measures adopted (or not adopted) by the Region of Wallonia and the Region of Bruxelles-Capitale, relates, in particular, to the lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the Directive and to the over-wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to the operating permits and the situations in which the conditions of the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated.

In support of his action, the applicant, in addition to putting forward very similar pleas to those raised in connection with Case F-5/05 (1 ) and raising the same pleas of unlawfulness as invoked in that case, also contends that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (2 ) is unlawful as to the part which inserts Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

Seventh, the applicant relies on the independence of the procedures governed by Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations and contests the Commission Invalidity Committee's decision indefinitely to stay the proceedings under Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations, until a decision has been taken on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.

Lastly, such a restriction goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective of maintaining public order or of protecting consumers, both in geographical terms — in that the problems relating to public order concern, according to the Italian authorities themselves, only ‘specific geographical areas’ of the national territory — and in terms of content — in that insurance undertakings operating in Italy are required to offer coverage to any owner or driver of motor vehicles, regardless of the risk posed in practice by that owner or driver as regards liability for damage caused to third parties.

In support of her action against the decisions of inadmissibility, the applicant alleges, inter alia: (i) that the decisions were based on incorrect facts (ii) infringement of the content and rationale of Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations; (iii) that the decisions are contradictory; (iv) that the decisions lack clarity; (v) that the Appointing Authority is incorrectly interpreting and/or applying the case-law relating to Article 288 EC and Article 90 of the Staff Regulations; (vi) that the Appointing Authority uses misconceived arguments; (vii) infringement of the principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty, and infringement of the principle that different interests must be weighed against each other, failure to observe the employer's duty to provide information, and infringement of the principle of sound administration and the right to a legal remedy.

Does Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27th November 2003 on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (2), whether interpreted pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or otherwise, preclude a Member State from requiring by its law that the father of a child who is not married to the mother shall have obtained an order of a court of competent jurisdiction granting him custody in order to qualify as having ‘custody rights’ which render the removal of that child from its country of habitual residence wrongful for the purposes of Article 2.11 of that Regulation?

The applicant considers further that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1 ) is unlawful as to the part which inserts Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Appointing Authority construes that provision as allowing it to classify the applicant in Grade C*1, step 2, in breach of the requirements laid down by Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and a number of principles of law.

However, in the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957, ‘health protection’ appeared only in Article 36, which stated: 20.5.2005 2.2.1 ‘The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property.

Is the concept of formally limited residence permit within the meaning of Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents to be interpreted as including a fixed-period residence permit which, under Netherlands law, does not offer any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration, even if, under Netherlands law, the period of validity of the fixed-period residence permit can in principle be extended indefinitely and also if a particular group of people, such as spiritual leaders and religious teachers, are thereby excluded from the application of the Directive?

I.   whereas many developments have taken place in the Black Sea region since 2008, and while regional cooperation seems to be advancing in some technical fields, such as environment, education, research and technology, as well as in normative approximation, a number of challenges, such as protracted conflicts in the Caucasus and Transnistria, maritime security and search and rescue operations, militarisation, displaced populations and the deterioration of democratic rule, persist and have even gained in intensity

Does Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, preclude the application of Paragraph 30(1) and (5) of the Austrian Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Lawyers’ Code), pursuant to which, inter alia, proof of Austrian citizenship or a nationality regarded as equivalent is a registration requirement, in respect of an application by a Bulgarian national employed by an Austrian lawyer, made on 2 January 2004, for registration in the list of Austrian trainee lawyers and for the issue of a ‘Legitimationsurkunde’ (certificate evidencing authority) in accordance with Paragraph 15(3) of the Austrian Rechtsanwaltsordnung and the rejection of the application solely on the grounds of nationality, despite the other requirements being fulfilled and the applicant having a permanent residence and work permit for Austria?

With regards to the transposition into Maltese law of the third sentence of Article 5 of the Directive, the Commission argues that the transposition of this sentence into Maltese law is both necessary and important insofar as the proviso in the sentence in question is a binding legislative provision which confers more extensive rights and a greater protection on consumers and assists in determining the result which the Directive seeks to achieve.

Must Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (1 ) be interpreted as precluding national provisions, such as Article 392(1a) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as the latter does not impose an obligation on the Public Prosecutor to request an early hearing and examination of a victim who is a minor by means of the Special Inquiry procedure prior to the main proceedings, and Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not make it possible for that minor victim himself or herself to appeal to the courts against a negative decision by the Public Prosecutor on his or her request to be heard in accordance with the appropriate Special Inquiry procedure?

Moreover, if officials and other servants of the Union are not authorised pursuant to Articles 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union, laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68(6) , and Article 11 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union, laid down in the same Regulation, to obey the summons by the committee, to attend for examination and to submit statements and give evidence in person, the official or authority responsible for denying the authorisation should appear before the committee and should explain the reasons therefor.

Any decision under paragraph 1(f)(i) in relation to offences committed partly within the territory of the executing State, or in a place equivalent to its territory, shall be taken by the competent authorities referred to in paragraph 2 in exceptional circumstances and on a case-by case basis, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, and in particular to whether a major or essential part of the conduct in question has taken place in the issuing State, whether the EEW relates to an act which is not a criminal offence under the law of the executing State and whether it would be necessary to carry out a search and seizure for the execution of the EEW .

The Council welcomes the recent positive steps concerning the cooperation between the government and the opposition, in establishing a Parliamentary committee on Electoral reform and a working group on reform of the Parliament's rules of procedure as well as a calendar for adoption of laws requiring 3/5 majority, which has led to the adoption of the first three such laws.

Where that law does not provide for the administration of the estate by a person who is not a beneficiary, the courts of the Member State in which the administrator is to be appointed may appoint a third-party administrator under their own law if that law so requires and there is a serious conflict of interests between the beneficiaries or between the beneficiaries and the creditors or other persons having guaranteed the debts of the deceased, a disagreement amongst the beneficiaries on the administration of the estate or a complex estate to administer due to the nature of the assets.