ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

(Joined Cases C-410/08 to C-412/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff headings 1515, 1517, 2106 and 3004 - Gelatin capsules - Fish oil, wheat-germ oil and black cumin oil - Concept of ‘packaging’)

2010/C 51/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Swiss Caps AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Headings 1517 (‘Margarine; edible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of this chapter, other than edible fats or oils or their fractions of heading 1516’) and 2106 (‘Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included’) — Rule 5(b) in Part A of Section I of Part One of that annex — Tariff classification of a fish-oil preparation to which vitamin E has been added and which is contained in capsules consisting of gelatin, glycerol and water — Concept of ‘packing material’

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature, set out in 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 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that:

— edible preparations presented in the form of capsules containing 600 mg of cold-pressed concentrated fish oil and 22.8 mg of concentrated vitamin E in a casing consisting of 212.8 mg of gelatin, 77.7 mg of glycerol and 159.6 mg of purified water and intended for use as a food supplement;

— edible preparations presented in the form of capsules containing 580 mg of wheat-germ oil in a casing consisting of 250 mg of granulated starch and intended for use as a food supplement; and

— edible preparations presented in the form of capsules containing 500 mg of cold-pressed black cumin oil, 38.7 mg of soya oil, 18.8 mg of vitamin E, 16 mg of butterfat, 10 mg of lecithin, 8.2 mg of wax, 8 mg of calcium pantothenate, 0.2 mg of folic acid and 0.11 mg of biotin in a casing consisting of 313.97 mg of gelatin mass (47.3 % gelatin, 17.2 % glycerine, 35.5 % water), 4.30 mg of paste consisting of 50 % titanium dioxide and 50 % glycerine, and 1.73 mg of paste consisting of 25 % quinoline yellow lacquer and 75 % glycerine and intended for use as a food supplement

come under heading 2106 of the abovementioned Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 313, 06.12.2008

OJ C 327, 20.12.2008
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-337/08) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Tax entity consisting of a resident parent company and one or more resident subsidiaries - Taxation of profits at parent-company level - Exclusion of non-resident subsidiaries)

2010/C 100/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X Holding B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Legislation permitting resident parent companies to form a single entity, for tax purposes, with one or more resident subsidiaries, resulting in the taxation of the parent company in respect of the profits of that entity — Exclusion of non-resident subsidiaries from that arrangement

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which makes it possible for a parent company to form a single tax entity with its resident subsidiary, but which prevents the formation of such a single tax entity with a non-resident subsidiary, in that the profits of that non-resident subsidiary are not subject to the fiscal legislation of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
2.

Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, must be interpreted as meaning that ongoing maintenance works in respect of the navigable channels of estuaries, which are not connected with or necessary to the management of the site and which were already authorised under national law before the expiry of the time-limit for transposing Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, must, to the extent that they constitute a project and are likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned, undergo an assessment of their implications for that site pursuant to those provisions where they are continued after inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive. If, having regard in particular to the regularity or nature of those works or the conditions under which they are carried out, they can be regarded as constituting a single operation, in particular where they are designed to maintain the navigable channel at a certain depth by means of regular dredging necessary for that purpose, the maintenance works can be considered to be one and the same project for the purposes of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-419/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes - Non-contractual liability - Damage - Causal link)

2010/C 134/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Trubowest Handel GmbH (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, dikigoroi), Viktor Makarov (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 9 July 2008 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-429/04 Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission, by which it dismissed an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Makarov to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation by which the public authorities fix minimum prices for the retail sale of cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;
2.

The third subparagraph of Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that goods seized by the local customs and tax authorities on their introduction into the territory of the Community and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, must be regarded as not having been imported into the Community, with the result that the chargeable event for excise duty on them does not occur. Where goods are seized after their unlawful introduction into that territory, namely once they have gone beyond the area in which the first customs office inside that territory is situated, and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities, without having left their possession, the excise duty on them is not to be deemed ‘to have been placed under a suspension arrangement’ for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 6(1)(c) of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 84(1)(a) and 98 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/99, and Article 867a 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 1662/1999 of 28 July 1999, with the result that the chargeable event for excise duty on those goods occurs and, consequently, the excise duty on them becomes chargeable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France)) — Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet

(Case C-518/08) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art - Directive 2001/84/EC - Persons entitled to receive royalties after the death of the author of the work of art - Concept of ‘those entitled’ - National legislation retaining, for a period of 70 years after the death of the author, the resale right solely for the benefit of the author’s heirs, to the exclusion of all legatees and successors in title - Whether that legislation is compatible with Directive 2001/84)

2010/C 148/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos

Defendants: Société Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Interpretation of Article 6 and Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32) — Beneficiaries of the resale right after the death of the author of the work — Whether a national law which retains, for a period of 70 years, the resale right for the benefit of the heirs of the author, to the exclusion of all legatees and successors in title complies with Directive 2001/84/EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which reserves the benefit of the resale right to the artist’s heirs at law alone, to the exclusion of testamentary legatees. That being so, it is for the referring court, for the purposes of applying the national provision transposing Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/84, to take due account of all the relevant rules for the resolution of conflicts of laws relating to the transfer on succession of the resale right.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
1.

Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, setting a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist, in this case 68 years, where the sole aim of that measure is to protect the health of patients against the decline in performance of those dentists after that age, since that age limit does not apply to non-panel dentists.; Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding such a measure where its aim is to share out employment opportunities among the generations in the profession of panel dentist, if, taking into account the situation in the labour market concerned, the measure is appropriate and necessary for achieving that aim. It is for the national court to identify the aim pursued by the measure laying down that age limit, by ascertaining the reason for maintaining the measure.
1.

Article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is to be interpreted as not conferring patent right protection in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the patented product is contained in the soy meal, where it does not perform the function for which it is patented, but did perform that function previously in the soy plant, of which the meal is a processed product, or would possibly again be able to perform that function after it had been extracted from the soy meal and inserted into the cell of a living organism.
1.

Declares that, by failing to comply with the time-limits for entry of the Communities’ own resources in the event of subsequent recovery and by delaying payment of those resources, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and under Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark)) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen v Region Syddanmark

(Case C-499/08) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Non-payment of a severance allowance to workers who are entitled to an old-age pension)

2010/C 346/10

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen

Defendant: Region Syddanmark

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 6 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) — National legislation providing for the payment of a severance allowance for dismissed employees who have been employed for a certain number of consecutive years with the same employer, except where they have reached an age where they are entitled to an old-age pension to which the employer has contributed — Direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which workers who are eligible for an old-age pension from their employer under a pension scheme which they have joined before attaining the age of 50 years cannot, on that ground alone, claim a severance allowance aimed at assisting workers with more than 12 years of service in the undertaking in finding new employment.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy)) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08)

(Joined Cases C-395/08 and C-396/08) (1)

(Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension - Periods not worked disregarded - Discrimination)

2010/C 274/02

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Defendants: Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — Part-time workers working some months of the year and resting in the other months — Exclusion of periods not worked in the calculation of pension rights

Operative part of the judgment

1. With regard to retirement pensions, Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for vertical-cyclical part-time workers, disregards periods not worked in calculating the period of service required to qualify for such a pension, unless such a difference in treatment is justified on objective grounds.

2. If the referring court reached the conclusion that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, Clauses 1 and 5(1) of the agreement would have to be interpreted as also precluding such legislation.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
2.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which portfolio dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company are exempt from corporation tax whilst portfolio dividends which a resident company receives from a company established in another Member State or in a non-member State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 are subject to that tax, provided, however, that the tax paid in the State in which the last-mentioned company is resident is credited against the tax payable in the Member State of the recipient company and the administrative burdens imposed on the recipient company in order to qualify for such a credit are not excessive. Information demanded by the national tax authority from the company receiving dividends that relates to the tax that has actually been charged on the profits of the company distributing dividends in the State in which the latter is resident is an intrinsic part of the very operation of the imputation method and cannot be regarded as an excessive administrative burden.
1.

Declares that, by requiring providers of building services established in another Member State to satisfy all the requirements imposed by the national scheme at issue, and in particular by Decree-Law No 12/2004 of 9 January 2004, in order to obtain authorisation to exercise, in Portugal, an activity in the construction sector, thereby precluding the possibility of account being duly taken of equivalent obligations to which such providers are subject in the Member State in which they are established, or of the verifications already carried out in that regard by the authorities of that Member State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-52/08) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Notaries - Directive 2005/36/EC)

2011/C 204/05

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: represented by H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent, and by K. Smith, Barrister)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F.S. Gaspar Rosa, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed, with regard to the profession of notary, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), which repealed Directive 89/49/EEC (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
—

Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by 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 (notified on 10 January 2000 under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty;
1.

declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;