ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Workers

–

Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration

–

Directive 89/48

–

Psychologist (Council Directive 89/48, Art. 3) (see paras 50-53, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis – Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) – Interpretation of Article 39(1) EC, the first paragraph of Article 10 EC and Articles 43, 47(1), 49, 55, 149 and 150 EC – National of a Member State who has pursued a regulated profession in the host Member State before and after recognition of professional equivalence resulting from academic qualifications obtained in another Member State – Prior completion of part of university studies, under a franchising agreement, in an institution not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State – Possibility, by reason of a refusal to recognise such qualifications, of excluding a worker from professional activity.

Operative part

Operative part

The competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under Article 3 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, to permit a national of a Member State who holds a diploma within the meaning of that directive issued by a competent authority of another Member State to pursue his profession on the same conditions as apply to holders of national diplomas even though that diploma

– attests to education and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment, and

– has not been homologated by the competent national authorities.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 34-36)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 37-41)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Directive 89/665 (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 232, third para., EC; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 3) (see paras 20-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-185/08 VDH Projektenwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action for a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act, on the ground that it failed, in relation to the conclusion of a public works contract and in relation to the award of a general commercial contract, to implement without delay the corrective mechanism provided for under Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC and to send the Federal Republic of Germany a notification under Article 3(2) of that directive – Action brought by natural and legal persons for a declaration of failure to act – Need for the measure regarding which the institution is alleged to have unlawfully failed to act to be of direct concern to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH shall bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision addressed to a Member State, cancelling financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 25-32)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paras 33-35)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Necessary for natural or legal persons to proceed by way of a preliminary ruling on validity – National courts obliged to apply national procedural rules in such a way as to make it possible to challenge the legality of acts of the institutions (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC) (see paras 37-39)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-324/06 Município de Gondomar v Commission by which that court declared inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/07 – Redevelopment of Greater Oporto/South – Gondomar subsystem (Portugal).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Município de Gondomar is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Recovery of tax

–

Limitation period (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 10) (see paras 38-42, operative part.

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons (Belgium) – Interpretation of Article 10 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Concepts of ‘chargeable event’ and ‘chargeability of tax’ – Starting point of limitation period for an action for recovery of the tax – Date when invoice is issued or date when the tax return in which the taxable person claims his right to deduct tax is lodged?

Operative part

Operative part

Article 10 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation and administrative practice fixing the starting point of the limitation period for an action for recovery of improperly deducted value added tax as the day on which the taxable person lodged the VAT return in which he claimed for the first time a right to deduct.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Interpretation of a judgment

–

Conditions for the admissibility thereof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43) (see para. 6

)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Região autónoma dos Açores shall pay the costs.

3. The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs.
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 in Case T-459/05

MPDV Mikrolab

v

OHIM

(

manufacturing score card

), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005, which rejected the appeal against the decision of the examiner refusing registration of the word mark ‘manufacturing score card’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Distinctive character of a word mark consisting of words each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

20 January 2009

Case C-38/08 P

Jörn Sack

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Remuneration – Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 – Principle of equal treatment)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-66/05 Sack v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for the annulment of the decisions relating to the setting of the applicant’s monthly salary for the period from May 2004 to February 2005, application for that salary to be recalculated and application for the annulment of the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 in the Commission’s legal service responsible for the coordination of a working group. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Sack is ordered to bear his own costs and those of the Commission.

Summary

1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118)

2. Officials – Equal treatment – Limits – Advantage unlawfully granted

3. Officials – Organisation of departments – Unit
APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07

Kronberger

v

Parliament

, by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005 rejecting as unfounded the applicant’s challenge relating to the election of Mr Andreas Mölzer as a Member of the European Parliament, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2009 – VDH Projektentwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission

(Case C‑387/08 P)

Appeal – Action for declaration of failure to act – Directive 89/665/EEC – Failure by the Commission to implement the corrective mechanism under Article 3(2) of Directive 89/665/EEC – Natural and legal persons – Direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Directive 89/665 (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 232, third para., EC; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 3) (see paras 20-27)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-185/08 VDH Projektenwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action for a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act, on the ground that it failed, in relation to the conclusion of a public works contract and in relation to the award of a general commercial contract, to implement without delay the corrective mechanism provided for under Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC and to send the Federal Republic of Germany a notification under Article 3(2) of that directive – Action brought by natural and legal persons for a declaration of failure to act – Need for the measure regarding which the institution is alleged to have unlawfully failed to act to be of direct concern to the applicant.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2009 – A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite and Others v Ministero della Salute and Agenzia italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

(Case C‑353/08)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 89/105/EEC – Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use – Article 4(1) – Price freeze – Price reductions

Approximation of laws – Medicinal products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use (Council Directive 89/105, Arts 1(1) and 4(1)) (see para 8, operative part 1-4)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio – Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/15/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) – Medicinal products covered by a price freeze – Procedures to be followed in the event of any decrease in prices.

Operative part:

1. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are respected, the competent authorities of a Member State may adopt general measures consisting of the reduction in the prices of all medicinal products or certain categories of medicinal products, even if the adoption of those measures is not preceded by a freezing of those prices.

2. Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are respected, the adoption of measures to reduce the prices of all medicinal products or certain categories of medicinal products is possible several times per year and for many years.

3. Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption of measures seeking to control the prices of all medicinal products or certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of expenditure predictions, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are respected and that those predictions are based on objective and verifiable information.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2009 – Nuova Agricast v Commission

(Case C‑225/08 P)

Appeal – Public access to documents of the institutions – Documents originating from a Member State – Objection of the Member State to disclosure of the documents – Refusal of access – New application – Confirmatory measure

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see paras 36-37)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Conditions – Requirement that the institution should examine the documents specifically and individually (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(7)) (see paras 56-60)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-443/07 Nuova Agricast v Commission by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2007 rejecting a request made by the appellant for review of that institution’s earlier refusal to allow it access to certain documents.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2010 – Celia v Leche Celta

(Case C‑300/08 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 14)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 2009.

Operative part:

The total costs to be reimbursed by Leche Celta SL to Celia SA are fixed at EUR 6 709.43.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

9 December 2009

Case C-432/08 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal – Officials – Social security – Payment of medical expenses – Implied rejection of an application seeking reimbursement in full of medical expenses incurred by the applicant – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2008 in Joined Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of two implied decisions of the Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100% of certain medical costs incurred by the applicant and an application for an order that the Commission pay to the applicant amounts in respect of certain medical costs.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Summary

Appeal – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statuteof the Court ofJustice, Art. 58)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. ecoblue AG shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Telecommunications sector

–

Universal service and users’ rights

–

Directive 2002/22 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Art. 13(2) and Annex IV) (see paras 17-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Fővárosi Bíroság – Interpretation of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), of Articles 10, 87(1) and 249 EC and of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Sharing of the net cost of the universal service obligation between providers of networks and electronic communications services – National legislation on the mechanisms for cost sharing providing for the application of rules incompatible with the directive as regards the financing of universal services provided during the year preceding the accession of the Member State in question to the European Union.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 13(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) and Annex IV to that directive do not apply to the facts of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, which concerns a contribution in the field of electronic communications charged by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for 2003.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Applicability to the new Member States – Hungary (Arts 49 EC to 54 EC; Act of Accession 2003, Arts 2, 53 and 54) (see paras 37-39, operative part 1)

2. Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Directive 96/71 (European Parliament and Council Directive 96/71, Recital 19 and Art. 1(4) (see paras 47-51, operative part 2)

3. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Temporary employment undertaking (Arts 49 EC to 54 EC) (see paras 56-58, operative part 3)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Fővárosi Bíróság – Interpretation of Article 3(c) EC, of Articles 49 EC, 52 EC and 54 EC, and of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) – National legislation restricting the undertaking of the activity of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in national territory.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Declares that Articles 49 EC to 54 EC cannot be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation concerning the activity of temporary employment undertakings, in force at the time of accession of that State to the European Union, remains valid so long as the Council of the European Union has not adopted a programme or directives for the purpose of implementing those provisions, with a view to laying down the conditions for liberalisation of the category of supply of services in question.

2. Neither the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services nor Article 1(4) thereof can be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may reserve the exercise of the activity of temporary employment undertaking to those undertakings alone that have their head office in the territory of that Member State or may treat them more favourably with regard to authorisation of the activity in question than undertakings established in another Member State.

3. Articles 49 EC to 54 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that reserves the exercise of the activity of temporary employment undertaking to undertakings having their head office in the territory of that Member State.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Copyright and related rights

–

Directive 2001/29 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Art. 3(1)) (see para. 43, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Arios Pagos – Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) – Concept of ‘communication to the public’ – Works transmitted by means of television sets installed in hotel rooms and connected to the central antenna of the hotel with no other action by the hotel to ensure reception of a signal by hotel customers.

Operative part

Operative part:

The hotelier, by installing televisions in his hotel rooms and by connecting them to the central antenna of the hotel, thereby, and without more, carries out an act of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
Operative part



Operative part

On those groundsthe President of the Court hereby orders:

1. There is nolonger any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures lodged by Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd.

2. The costs are reserved.