ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard

(Case C-462/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Section 5 of Chapter II - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Section 2 of Chapter II - Special jurisdiction - Article 6, point 1 - More than one defendant)

(2008/C 171/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

Defendant: Jean-Pierre Rouard

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1), 18(1) and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Rules on jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Situation of a dismissed worker who had worked, in non-Member States, for two companies in a group with their seats in two different Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6, point 1, of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-418/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF - Arable crop sector - Clearance of EAGGF accounts - Reliable and operational inspection system - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Flat-rate correction - Retrospective application of the rules relating to checks - Implicit obligations - Principle of proportionality - Legal certainty - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2008/C 142/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert and L. Van den Broeck, Agents, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2 % of the expenditure declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
1.

Article 5(1) and (2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, must be interpreted to the effect that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is not entitled to prevent the use by a third party of a sign identical with, or similar to, his mark, in a comparative advertisement which satisfies all the conditions, laid down in Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, under which comparative advertising is permitted. However, where the conditions required in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 to prevent the use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a registered trade mark are met, a comparative advertisement in which that sign is used cannot satisfy the condition, laid down in Article 3a(1)(d) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, under which comparative advertising is permitted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Bauer Verlag Beteiligungs GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

(Case C-360/06) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Valuation of unlisted shares in limited companies)

(2008/C 301/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Intervener: Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) — Valuation of unlisted shares in limited companies — Difference between the valuation of a share in a national partnership and a share in a partnership established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

In the absence of valid justification, Articles 52 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 52 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 58 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 58 of the EC Treaty, and now Article 48 EC) preclude the application of tax legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of valuing the unlisted shares of a company in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, causes that company's holding in a partnership established in another Member State, subject to the condition that such a holding is capable of allowing it a definite influence on the decisions of the partnership established in the other Member State and enabling it to determine its activities, to be assigned a greater value than its holding in a partnership established in the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-504/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/57/EEC - Implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites - Article 3(1) - Incorrect transposition)

(2008/C 236/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6) — Appointment of health and safety coordinators for a construction site where a number of undertakings are operating

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose in Italian law Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-205/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC - Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of the bilateral agreements entered into with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union - Investment agreements entered into by the Republic of Austria with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cape Verde, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey)

2009/C 102/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, B. Martenczuk and C. Tufvesson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and G. Thallinger, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agent), Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, K. Szíjjártó and M. Fehér, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of bilateral agreements concluded with third countries before accession of the Member State to the Communities — Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Austria with the Republic of Korea, Cape Verde, China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and Turkey

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in the investment agreements entered into with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cape Verde, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC;

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — British Aggregates Association v Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-487/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Environmental levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom)

(2009/C 44/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: British Aggregates Association (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Flett, B. Martenczuk and T. Scharf, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: T. Harris, M. Hall and G. Facenna, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02 British Aggregates Association v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance rejected as unfounded an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 not to raise objections to the system of levies on quarry aggregates in the United Kingdom (State aid 863/01 — United Kingdom, Aggregates Levy)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Third Chamber):

1. Sets aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02 British Aggregates Association v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-497/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Tendering procedure - Payment in kind - Payment of the tenderers in fruits other than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender - Causal link)

2009/C 153/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and R. Fioretti, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2006 in Case T-226/01 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for compensation for the alleged loss caused by the Commission’s Decisions C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and C(96)2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted within the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.
1.

Declares that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and a part of the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Apennines, by failing to submit a summary report on the analyses required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as provided for in Article 15(2) thereof, and by failing to carry out the analyses and the study referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Kerstin Sundelind Lopez v Miguel Enrique Lopez Lizazo

(Case C-68/07) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 3, 6 and 7 - Jurisdiction - Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Jurisdiction in divorce proceedings - Respondent not a national or a resident of a Member State - National rules providing for exorbitant jurisdiction)

(2008/C 22/29)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kerstin Sundelind Lopez

Defendant: Miguel Enrique Lopez Lizazo

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Articles 3, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Jurisdiction for divorce proceedings where the respondent is neither resident within a Member State nor a citizen of a Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004, as regards treaties with the Holy See, are to be interpreted as meaning that where, in divorce proceedings, a respondent is not habitually resident in a Member State and is not a national of a Member State, the courts of a Member State cannot base their jurisdiction to hear the petition on their national law, if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction under Article 3 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/8

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-89/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Employment in the public service - Posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on board all ships flying the flag of a Member State - Condition of nationality)

(2008/C 107/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 39(4) EC — Free movement of workers — Exercise of public power — Requirement of French nationality for the pursuit of employment as master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag — Incompatible with Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation a requirement of French nationality for access to the posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
1.

Declares that, by failing ensure that, for each river basin district or for the portion of an international river basin district falling within its territory, an analysis of its characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and an economic analysis of water use, are undertaken according to the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the Directive and, by failing to submit summary reports of the analyses required by that provision, it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2) of the Directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-39/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration - National legislation not providing for the recognition of diplomas allowing access to the profession of hospital pharmacist - Failure to transpose the directive)

(2008/C 158/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose 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), as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose 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, as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-289/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/17/EC - Coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2008/C 128/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents,)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Andrade de Sousa, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/17

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-510/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 68/414/EEC - Article 1(1) - Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of petroleum products - Breach)

(2008/C 223/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance with the obligation to stock petroleum products under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1968 II, p. 586), as amended and then codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8) — Nature and extent of the obligation to stock — Discrepancy between the figures transmitted by the Member State concerned and the data provided by Eurostat — Method of calculating stocks of petroleum products and the level of internal consumption of those products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2 of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.