ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Zino Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

(Case C-302/08) (1)

(Trade marks - International registration - Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 146 - International registration and a Community trade mark having the same effects in the Community - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Article 5(4) - Goods suspected of infringing a trade mark - Customs action - Proprietor of a Community trade mark - Right to secure action also in Member States other than the Member State in which the application is lodged - Extension to the holder of an international registration)

2009/C 205/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA

Defendant: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — The right to make an application to the customs authorities to take action which, apart from seeking action to be taken by the customs authorities in the Member State in which the application is made, seeks action from customs authorities of one or more other Member States, exists only for the proprietors of Community trade marks — Extension of that right to proprietors of internationally registered trade marks within the meaning of Article 146 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark — Legal effects of the accession of the European Community to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, read in the light of Article 146 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003, is to be interpreted as allowing the holder of an internationally registered trade mark to secure action by the customs authorities of one or more other Member States, besides that of the Member State in which it is lodged, just like the proprietor of a Community trade mark.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 1441-1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Article 48-1o of Decree No 2005-1308 of 20 October 2005 concerning contracts awarded by the contracting authorities referred to in Article 4 of Order No 2005-649 of 6 June 2005 on contracts awarded by certain public bodies or private persons not subject to the Public Procurement Code, in so far as that provision imposes on the contracting authority or entity a ten-day period within which to respond to a formal challenge — the bringing of any precontractual proceedings before that response being precluded — and where that period does not have the effect of suspending the period which must be ensured between the notification to the unsuccessful candidates and tenderers of the decision to award the contract and the signature of that contract, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia)) — Pärlitigu OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-56/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading CN 05119110 - Subheading CN 03032200 - Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon - Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 - Anti-dumping duties)

2009/C 220/12

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pärlitigu OÜ

Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tallinna Halduskohus — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) in the version applicable at the material time — Validity of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1) — Classification under heading 0303220015 (farmed salmon, frozen, other) or 0511911000 (fish waste) for the purpose of levying anti-dumping duty — Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon obtained after filleting the fish

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature, which constitutes Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, must be classified under CN heading 0303 22 00 if the goods are fit for human consumption at the time that they are cleared through customs, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-272/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Right of asylum - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 205/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the presribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-97/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81(1) EC - Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Groups of undertakings - Imputability of infringements - Responsibility of a parent company for the infringement of competition rules by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Rebuttable presumption where the parent company has a 100 % shareholding)

2009/C 267/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak, M. van der Woude and M. Mollica, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, which rejected an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the European market for choline chloride — Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/20

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)) — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA

(Case C-277/08) (1)

(Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time)

2009/C 267/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francisco Vicente Pereda

Defendant: Madrid Movilidad SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Employee on sick leave during the period of annual leave allocated by the undertaking as a result of an accident at work which happened before that period of leave began — Right of the worker to take his annual leave during a different period

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or collective agreements which provide that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, after his recovery, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg — Austria) — Arthur Gottwald v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

(Case C-103/08) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Article 12 EC - Issue of an annual toll disc in respect of a motor vehicle free of charge to disabled persons - Provisions restricting the issue of that disc to disabled persons resident or ordinarily resident in national territory)

2009/C 282/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Arthur Gottwald

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 12 of the EC Treaty — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National legislation under which a toll disc made available free of charge to disabled persons is granted only to persons resident or ordinarily resident in national territory.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the issue of an annual toll disc free of charge to those disabled persons who are resident or ordinarily resident in the territory of the Member State concerned, including also those persons who regularly travel to that State for professional or personal reasons.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-502/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose completely - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

2009/C 282/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by:J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of that directive;

2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-255/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Determination of thresholds - Size of the project - Incomplete transposition)

2009/C 297/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a consent procedure and to an assessment of those effects, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to Directive 85/337, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat — Austria) — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten v Kärntner Landesregierung

(Case C-205/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary hearing - Article 234 EC - Concept of ‘national court or tribunal’ - Admissibility - Directive 85/337/EEC - Environmental impact assessment - Construction of overhead electrical power lines - Length of more than 15 km - Transboundary constructions - Transboundary power line - Total length exceeding the threshold - Line mainly situated in the territory of a neighbouring Member State - Length of national section below the threshold)

2010/C 24/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

Defendant: Kärntner Landesregierung

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Umweltsenat (Austria) — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Requirement for an environment impact assessment for constructions of overhead electrical power lines of a length of more than 15 km — Length to be taken into account in the case of trans-frontier constructions — Scheme for an electrical power line with a total length exceeding the threshold but with only a section of 7.4 km on national territory, the remainder being situated on the territory of the neighbouring Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, are to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a Member State must make a project referred to in point 20 of Annex I to the Directive, such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure even where the project is transboundary in nature and less than 15 km of it is situated on the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Christian Grimme v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

(Case C-351/08) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Member of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law, director of a branch in Germany - Compulsory membership of the German pension insurance scheme - Exemption from that obligation for members of managing boards of companies limited by shares governed by German law)

2010/C 11/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Grimme

Defendant: Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, BGl Bertil Grimme AG Insurance Brokers

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5, 7 and 16 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, and of Articles 12, 17, 18 and 19 of Annex I to that agreement (OJ L 114 of 30.04.2002, p. 6) — National legislation requiring a member of a managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law who manages in Germany a branch of that company to be insured in the German statutory pension insurance scheme, whilst exempting members of managing boards of companies limited by shares governed by German law from that obligation

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 and, in particular, Articles 1, 5, 7 and 16 thereof as well as Articles 12, and 17 to 19 of Annex I thereto, do not preclude the legislation of a Member State from requiring a person, who is a national of that Member State and employed in the territory thereof to join the statutory pension insurance scheme of that Member State, despite the fact that that person is a member of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law when members of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by the law of that Member State are not obliged to join that insurance scheme.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.