ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan

(Case C-109/09) (1)

(Fixed-term employment contract - Directive 1999/70/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Role of the national court)

2011/C 139/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: Gertraud Kumpan

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation, first, of Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and, second, of Clause 5(1) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Prohibition on age discrimination — National legislation allowing fixed-term employment contracts on the sole condition that the worker has reached the age of 58 — Compatibility of that legislation with the above-cited provisions — Legal consequences of any incompatibility

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer’, provided for in Paragraph 14(3) of the Law on part-time employment and fixed-term employment contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge) of 21 December 2000, must be applied to situations in which a fixed-term contract has not been immediately preceded by a contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer and an interval of several years separates those contracts, where, for that entire period, the initial employment relationship continued for the same activity, with the same employer, by means of an uninterrupted succession of fixed-term contracts. It is for the national court, to the fullest extent possible, to interpret the relevant provisions of national law in such a way as to comply with Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Novo Nordisk AS v Ravimiamet

(Case C-249/09) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Advertising - Medical journal - Information not included in the summary of product characteristics)

2011/C 186/02

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novo Nordisk AS

Defendant: Ravimiamet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Advertisements for medicinal products published in a medical journal and directed to persons qualified to prescribe medicines — Whether information not limited to that contained in the summary of product characteristics may be included in such advertisements

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as extending also to quotations taken from medical journals or other scientific works which are included in advertisements for medicinal products directed at persons qualified to prescribe or supply medicines;

2. Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, must be interpreted as prohibiting the publication in advertising medicinal products directed at persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, of claims which conflict with the summary of product characteristics, but it does not require that all the claims in such advertisements are included in that summary or can be derived from it. Such advertisements may include claims supplementing the information referred to in Article 11 of that directive, provided that those claims: — confirm or clarify — and are compatible with — that information, and do not distort it, and — are consistent with the requirements of Articles 87(3) and 92(2) and (3) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
2.

Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Article 12(1) and (2)(a), third indent, of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 12/97 of 18 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that customs authorities are obliged to issue binding tariff informations that are in conformity with the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature. If a disagreement arises between those authorities and economic operators as to whether those notes are in conformity with the Combined Nomenclature and on the classification of goods, it is for the economic operators to bring proceedings before the competent authority pursuant to Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended. The court seised shall rule on the classification of the product, if necessary after making a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice as provided in Article 267 TFEU. Furthermore, the Member State to which those authorities belong may call upon the committee provided for in Article 247 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8 of Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000.
1.

Declares that, by failing to establish a programme of measures to ensure strict protection of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Firenze (Italy)) — Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Università degli studi di Pisa

(Case C-452/09) (1)

(Directive 82/76/EEC - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Doctors - Acquisition of the title of medical specialist - Remuneration during the period of training - Five-year limitation period in respect of the right to payment of periodic remuneration)

2011/C 204/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Università degli studi di Pisa

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte di Appello di Firenze (Court of Appeal, Florence) — Interpretation of Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21) — Training of medical specialists — Right to appropriate remuneration during the period of training — Direct effect of a directive that has not yet been transposed into national law — Whether it is possible for a Member State to rely, in relation to the period preceding the first implementing legislation, on five-year or ten-year limitation in respect of a right arising under the directive

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from relying on the expiry of a reasonable limitation period as a defence in legal proceedings brought by an individual for the purpose of safeguarding rights conferred by a directive, even though the Member State did not transpose that directive correctly, on condition that, by its conduct, that Member State was not responsible for the delay in bringing the action. The finding by the Court that there has been a breach of European Union law does not affect the starting point of the limitation period, in the case where that breach is not in doubt.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc

(Case C-427/09) (1)

(Patent law - Medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Article 2 - Scope)

2011/C 298/04

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd

Defendant: Synaptech Inc

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of first authorisation to place the product on the market — Account taken only of authorisations issued in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 24) — Authorisation delivered in accordance with the legislation applicable in Austria before the latter acceded to the EEA.

Operative part of the judgment

A product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was placed on the market in the European Community as a medicinal product for human use before obtaining a marketing authorisation in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989, and, in particular, without undergoing safety and efficacy testing, is not within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, as that scope is defined in Article 2 of that regulation, as amended, and may not be the subject of a supplementary protection certificate.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-485/09) (1)

(Directive 91/628/EEC - Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex - Regulation (EC) No 615/98 - Article 5(3) - Export refunds - Protection of bovine animals during rail transport - Conditions for payment of export refunds for bovine animals - Compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 252/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52), and in particular of point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to that directive, and interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) — Transport of bovine animals by rail — Applicability of the animal-welfare rules concerning watering and feeding intervals, journey times and rest periods

Operative part of the judgment

1. Point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, applies inter alia to rail transport;

2. In situations in which the breach of Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, has not resulted in the death of the animals being transported, the competent authorities and courts of the Member States, when carrying out their checks or review, are required to apply Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality, by refusing to pay the export refund for animals in respect of which the provisions of that directive concerning their welfare have not been complied with.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
1.

By reserving the benefit of the corporation tax exemption to pension funds resident in Portuguese territory alone, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.
3.

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that: (a) a Member State seeking to ensure a particularly high level of consumer protection in the sector of games of chance may be entitled to consider that it is only by setting up a monopoly for a single entity subject to strict control by the public authorities that it can tackle crime linked to that sector and pursue the objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating addiction to gambling with sufficient effectiveness; (b) to be consistent with the objective of fighting crime and reducing opportunities for gambling, national legislation establishing a monopoly of games of chance which allows the holder of the monopoly to follow an expansionist policy must: — be based on a finding that the crime and fraud linked to gaming and addiction to gambling are a problem in the Member State concerned which could be remedied by expanding authorised regulated activities, and — allow only moderate advertising limited strictly to what is necessary for channelling consumers towards monitored gaming networks; (c) the fact that a Member State has opted for a system of protection that differs from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the assessment of the need for and proportionality of the relevant provisions, which must be assessed solely by reference to the objectives pursued by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned and the level of protection which they seek to ensure.
2.

Declares that, from 2000, the date of designation of the ‘Alto Sil’ area as a special protection area under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997, — by authorising the ‘Nueva Julia’ and ‘Ladrones’ open-cast mining operations, without making the grant of the authorisations relating thereto subject to the carrying out of an appropriate assessment of the possible impacts of those projects, and, in any event, without complying with the conditions in which a project might be realised despite the risk posed by that project for the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), which constitutes one of the natural assets which motivated the classification of the ‘Alto Sil’ site as a special protection area, namely the absence of alternative solutions, the existence of imperative reasons of major public interest and communication to the European Commission of the necessary compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network, and — by failing to adopt the necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of habitats including the habitats of species, and to prevent significant disturbance of the capercaillie, the presence of which on the ‘Alto Sil’ site was the reason for the designation of that area as a special protection area, caused by the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Salguero-Prégame-Valdesegadas’, ‘Fonfría’, ‘Ampliación de Feixolín’ and ‘Nueva Julia’ mines, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the ‘Alto Sil’ special protection area under Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in conjunction with Article 7 thereof;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu (Republic of Poland)) — Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w. Poznaniu v Minister Finansów

(Case C-530/09) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(b) and (g) - Place of taxable transactions - Place of supply for tax purposes - Design, hiring out and assembly of fair stands)

2011/C 370/15

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inter-Mark Group Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Determination of the place of taxation — Classification of a given business activity as a service ancillary to cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment or similar activities or as an advertising service — Hiring out of fair stands to exhibitors

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting of the design, temporary provision and, where necessary, the transportation and assembly of a fair or exhibition stand for clients presenting their goods or services at fairs and exhibitions is liable to come within the scope of:

— Article 56(1)(b) of that directive, in the case where that stand is designed or used for purposes of advertising;

— Article 52(a) of that directive, in the case where that stand is designed and provided for a specific fair or exhibition on a cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment or similar theme, or where that stand corresponds to a model in respect of which the organiser of a specific fair or exhibition has prescribed the form, size, material composition or visual appearance;

— Article 56(1)(g) of that directive, in the case where the temporary provision, for payment, of the constituent material elements of that stand constitutes a determining element of that supply.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-505/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - National allocation plan for emission allowances for the Republic of Estonia for the period 2008 to 2012 - Respective competences of the Commission and the Member States - Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)

2012/C 151/03

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková and E. Randvere and by E. White, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Commission: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Vang, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo and M. Linntam, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Interveners in support of the Republic of Estonia: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, acting as Agent), Republic of Latvia (represented by K. Drēviņa and I. Kalniņš, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-263/07 Estonia v Commission by which the Court annulled the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2007 concerning the national greenhouse gas allocation plan notified by the Republic of Estonia for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Error of law in examining the admissibility of the application for annulment — Misinterpretation of Articles 9(1) and (3) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the general principle of equal treatment — Misinterpretation of the scope and extent of the principle of sound administration — Erroneous classification of the provisions of the contested decision as not separable, leading to the total rather than partial annulment of that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.