ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2011 — Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) v European Commission

(Case C-260/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges - Limitation of parallel exports in that market - Agreement between a manufacturer and an exclusive distributor - Distribution agreement allowing passive sales - Proof of a concurrence of wills in the absence of direct documentary evidence that passive sales were to be restricted - Standard of proof necessary to establish the existence of a vertical agreement)

2011/C 103/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) (represented by: J.K. de Pree and E.N.M. Raedts, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 in Case T-18/03 CD-Contact Data GmbH v Commission of the European Communities by which the Court reduced the fine imposed on the appellant and dismissed as to the remainder an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the markets for Nintendo consoles and video games cartridges compatible with Nintendo consoles designed to restrict parallel exports of those consoles and cartridges

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-208/09) (1)

(European citizenship - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Law of a Member State with constitutional status abolishing the nobility in that State - Surname of an adult, a national of that State, obtained by adoption in another Member State, in which that adult resides - Title of nobility and nobiliary particle forming part of the surname - Registration by the authorities of the first Member State in the register of civil status - Correction of the entry by the authorities on their own initiative - Removal of the title of nobility and nobiliary particle)

2011/C 63/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Art. 18 EC — Constitutional law of a Member State aimed at abolishing the nobility in that State and prohibiting its nationals from bearing foreign noble titles — Refusal of the authorities of that Member State to enter in the register of births a noble title and a noble particle forming part of a surname which an adult person, being a national of that State, acquired in another Member State, in which she resides, following her adoption by a national of that latter State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the authorities of a Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, from refusing to recognise all the elements of the surname of a national of that State, as determined in another Member State — in which that national resides — at the time of his or her adoption as an adult by a national of that other Member State, where that surname includes a title of nobility which is not permitted in the first Member State under its constitutional law, provided that the measures adopted by those authorities in that context are justified on public policy grounds, that is to say, they are necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to secure and are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.08.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Republic of Malta) — AJD Tuna Ltd v Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd, Avukat Generali

(Case C-221/09) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Validity - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean)

2011/C 139/03

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AJD Tuna Ltd

Defendants: Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd, Avukat Generali

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ L 155, p. 9)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea or of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy as regards the adversarial principle and the principle of effective judicial protection;

2. Examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 530/2008 as regards the requirement to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality;

3. Regulation No 530/2008 is invalid in so far as, having been adopted on the basis of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2371/2002, the prohibitions it contains took effect from 23 June 2008 for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain and Community operators who had concluded contracts with them, whereas those prohibitions took effect from 16 June 2008 for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Malta, Greece, France, Italy and Cyprus and Community operators who had concluded contracts with them, without such difference in treatment being objectively justified.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland)) — Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Nowym Sączu v Stanisława Tomaszewska

(Case C-440/09) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension - Account to be taken of the period of contribution completed in another Member State - Aggregation - Rules for calculation)

2011/C 130/09

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Nowym Sączu

Defendant: Stanisława Tomaszewska

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) and of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159) — Early retirement pension based on the duration of contribution periods — Method of calculating benefits — Aggregation of contribution periods completed in another Member State and those completed in the Member State concerned prior to or after the addition of the additional periods provided for under national law and amounting to one third of the contribution periods

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the determination of the minimum insurance period required by national law for the purpose of the acquisition by a migrant worker of entitlement to a retirement pension, the competent institution of the Member State concerned must take into consideration, for the purposes of determining the limit which non-contribution periods may not exceed in relation to contribution periods, as provided for by the legislation of that Member State, all insurance periods completed in the course of the migrant worker’s career, including those completed in other Member States.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
1.

By providing under the exceptional tax regularisation scheme for assets not in Portuguese territory on 31 December 2004 (‘regime excepcional de regularização tributária de elementos patrimoniais que não se encontrem no território português em 31 de Dezembro de 2004’) established by Law No 39-A/2005 of 29 July 2005, for preferential tax treatment of public debt securities issued only by the Portuguese State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v European Commission

(Case C-352/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in stainless steel flat products - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Powers of the Commission - Principles of nulla poena sine lege and res judicata - Rights of the defence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Transfer of liability by means of a statement - Limitation period - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2011/C 152/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt, and S. Thomas, Universitätsprofessor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS and, in the alternative, the application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision — Cartel on the market for stainless steel flat products — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after expiry of the ECSC Treaty, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Infringement of nulla poene sine lege and res judicata principles and of Articles 5, 7(1) and 83 EC — Infringement of applicable rules concerning time-bar for proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-441/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses)

2011/C 204/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Beaupère-Manokha, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia SA

(Case C-375/09) (1)

(Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 5 - Abuse of a dominant position - Powers of the competition authorities of the Member States to find that there has been no breach of Article 102 TFEU)

2011/C 186/06

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Defendant: Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Abuse of a dominant position — Whether the competition authorities of the Member States have the power to take a decision stating that Article 82 EC is not applicable to the commercial practices of an undertaking

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a national competition authority, in the case where, in order to apply Article 102 TFEU, it examines whether the conditions for applying that article are satisfied and where, following that examination, it forms the view that there has been no abuse, from being able to take a decision stating that there has been no breach of that article;

2. The second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 1/2003 is directly applicable and precludes the application of a rule of national law which would require a procedure relating to the application of Article 102 TFEU to be brought to an end by a decision stating that there has been no breach of that article.

(1) OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
1.

The expression ‘prevents an on-the-spot check from being carried out’ in Article 23(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, corresponds to an autonomous concept of European Union law that must be given a uniform interpretation in all the Member States, to the effect that it includes, in addition to deliberate conduct, any act or omission ascribable to the negligence of the farmer or his representative which has the consequence of preventing an on-the-spot check from being carried out in full, where the farmer or his representative has not taken all measures which may reasonably be required of him in order to ensure that that check may be carried out in full.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (C-71/09 P), Hotel Cipriani Srl (C-73/09 P), Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (C-76/09 P) v Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl, European Commission, Italian Republic

(Joined Cases C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P and C-76/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Interest in bringing an action - Objection of lis alibi pendens - State aid - Multisectoral aid scheme - Reductions in social security contributions - Decision 2000/394/EC - Compensatory nature - Whether intra-Community trade affected - Impact on competition - Extent of control - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(b) to (d) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 14 and 15)

2011/C 226/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere» (represented by: A. Vianello, avvocato) (C-71/09 P), Hotel Cipriani Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati) (C-73/09 P), Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo and T. Ubaldi, avvocati) (C-76/09 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl (represented by: A. Bianchini, avvocato), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato), Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, and subsequently by G. Palmieri, Agents, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v Commission by which the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) dismissed the actions for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals of the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Hotel Cipriani Srl and Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) and the cross-appeal of Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal of the European Commission;

3. Orders the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Hotel Cipriani Srl, Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) and Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl to pay in equal shares the costs relating to the main appeals and to the cross-appeal of the latter;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in relation to its cross-appeal;

5. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-264/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2003/54/EC - Investment contract - Bilateral agreement on the protection of investments concluded prior to accession to the European Union - Article 307 EC)

2011/C 319/02

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, F. Hoffmeister and J. Javorský, Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9(e) and 20(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54/EC of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Priority access of an operator to part of the cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Infringement of the obligation to ensure non-discriminatory access for transport and distribution networks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — IMC Securities BV v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

(Case C-445/09) (1)

(Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level)

2011/C 269/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IMC Securities BV

Respondent: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a), second indent, of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) — Securing prices at an abnormal or artificial level — Meaning — Transactions and orders bringing about a brief fluctuation of prices

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a), second indent, of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) must be interpreted as not requiring, in order for the price of one or more financial instruments to be considered to have been fixed at an abnormal or artificial level, that that price must maintain an abnormal or artificial level for more than a certain duration.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to comply, within the prescribed time-limits, with Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen, by recovering from the recipients of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 4 of that decision.
2.

Registration of the earlier trade mark in the Member State concerned does not constitute a prerequisite for the running of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence prescribed in Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104. The prerequisites for the running of that period of limitation, which it is for the national court to determine, are, first, registration of the later trade mark in the Member State concerned, second, the application for registration of that mark being made in good faith, third, use of the later trade mark by its proprietor in the Member State where it has been registered and, fourth, knowledge by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark that the later trade mark has been registered and used after its registration.