ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Landessozialgericht (Germany)) — Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft

(Case C-350/07) (1)

(Competition - Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC - Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Abuse of dominant position - Freedom to provide services - Articles 49 EC and 50 EC - Restriction - Justification - Risk of serious harm to the financial equilibrium of the social security scheme)

2009/C 102/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sächsisches Landessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kattner Stahlbau GmbH

Defendant: Maschinenbau- und Metall- Berufsgenossenschaft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sächsisches Landessozialgericht — Interpretation of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and of other provisions of Community law — National legislation establishing a compulsory insurance scheme against the risk of accidents at work and occupational diseases, consisting of a number of associations for the prevention of accidents at work (‘Berufsgenossenschaft’) and which provides for undertakings to be compulsorily affiliated to the association having the requisite territorial and occupational competence — Whether such associations for the prevention of accidents at work, which are able to fix the level of their subscriptions independently, without any upper limit being prescribed by national legislation, constitute an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 81 EC and 82 EC are to be interpreted to the effect that a body such as the employers' liability insurance association at issue in the main proceedings, to which undertakings in a particular branch of industry and a particular territory must be affiliated in respect of insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases, is not an undertaking within the meaning of those provisions, but fulfils an exclusively social function, where such a body operates within the framework of a scheme which applies the principle of solidarity and is subject to State supervision, which it is for the referring court to verify.

2. Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings in a particular branch of industry and a particular territory must be affiliated to a body such as the employers' liability insurance association at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that that scheme does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of ensuring the financial equilibrium of a branch of social security, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy)) — Marco Gambazzi v DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company

(Case C-394/07) (1)

(Brussels Convention - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Grounds for refusal - Infringement of public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought - Exclusion of the defendant from the proceedings before the court of the State of origin because of failure to comply with a court order)

2009/C 141/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marco Gambazzi

Defendants: DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27(1) of the Brussels Convention — Decision whose recognition is contrary to public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought — Decision preventing one of the parties from presenting a defence (‘debarment’) because of failure to comply with a court order

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be interpreted as follows:

the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may take into account, with regard to the public policy clause referred to in that article, the fact that the court of the State of origin ruled on the applicant’s claims without hearing the defendant, who entered appearance before it but who was excluded from the proceedings by order on the ground that he had not complied with the obligations imposed by an order made earlier in the same proceedings, if, following a comprehensive assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the circumstances, it appears to it that that exclusion measure constituted a manifest and disproportionate infringement of the defendant’s right to be heard.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
1.

Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data requires Member States to ensure a right of access to information on the recipients or categories of recipient of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed not only in respect of the present but also in respect of the past. It is for Member States to fix a time-limit for storage of that information and to provide for access to that information which constitutes a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the data subject in protecting his privacy, in particular by way of his rights to object and to bring legal proceedings and, on the other, the burden which the obligation to store that information represents for the controller.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark)) — Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard

(Case C-421/07) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Concept of ‘advertising’ - Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative)

2009/C 141/16

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Party in the main proceedings

Frede Damgaard

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Art. 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Concept of advertising — Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative and completely independently of the seller and the manufacturer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 86 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including its therapeutic or prophylactic properties, may be regarded as advertising within the meaning of that article, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller of such a medicinal product. It is for the national court to determine whether that dissemination constitutes a form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, by the date on which the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece concerning repayment of the aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and under Article 228(1) EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ústi nad Labem — Czech Republic) — RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o. v Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem

(Case C-572/07) (1)

(Preliminary references - VAT - Exemption for lettings of immovable property - Cleaning of common parts related to the letting - Ancillary supplies)

2009/C 180/19

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ústi nad Labem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 13 B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Scope of the VAT exemption on the letting of immovable property — Inclusion of costs for cleaning the common parts of an apartment block.

Operative part of the judgment

For the purposes of applying Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the letting of immovable property and the cleaning service of the common parts of the latter must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as independent, mutually divisible operations, so that the said service does not fall within that provision.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-427/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Access to justice - Directive 2003/35/EC)

2009/C 220/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, M. Collins SC, and D. McGrath BL)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that — by failing to adopt, in conformity with Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment in the road construction category, covered by point 10(e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, and — by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(3) to (7) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, and by failing to adequately notify such provisions to the Commission of the European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, and Article 6 of Directive 2003/35;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-118/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 307, second paragraph, EC - Failure to adopt appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities between the bilateral agreements concluded with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union and the EC Treaty - Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Finland with the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Uzbekistan)

2010/C 24/03

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen, H. Støvlbæk and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by J. Fazekas, Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), Republic of Austria (represented by C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to take the appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities with the Treaty relating to the provisions on transfers in the bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Finland with the Russian Federation, Belarus, China, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities with the Treaty concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in the investment agreements on the mutual promotion and protection of investments entered into by the Republic of Finland with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of which the Russian Federation is the successor (agreement signed on 8 February 1989), the Republic of Belarus (agreement signed on 28 October 1992), the People’s Republic of China (agreement signed on 4 September 1984), Malaysia (agreement signed on 15 April 1985), the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (agreement signed on 27 April 1985) and the Republic of Uzbekistan (agreement signed on 1 October 1992), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC.;

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

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

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-335/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Failure to require more stringent treatment of nitrogen in all treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent)

2009/C 282/04

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen, L. Parpala, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to require that all urban waste water collected from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent be subject to more efficient treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-246/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Breach of Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC - Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants - Unilateral proposal by a Member State to list a substance in Annexe A to that convention)

(2010/C 161/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Tufvesson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and A. Falk, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Pilgaard Zinglersen and R. Holdgaard, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, acting as Agent, and by D. Anderson QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC — Unilateral proposal to list a substance, perfluoroctane sulfonate, in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by unilaterally proposing that a substance, perfluoroctane sulfonate, be listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Kingdom of Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the European Commission’s costs;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-223/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 19/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

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 Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/18

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski

(Case C-66/08) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant - Interpretation of the terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ in the executing Member State)

(2008/C 223/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Szymon Kozłowski

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of execution of a sentence of imprisonment in relation to a person staying or residing in the Member State of execution — Concepts of ‘residence’ and ‘staying’ — Interpretation of Article 6(1) EU in conjunction with Articles 12 EC and 17 EC — National legislation which allows requested persons to be treated differently by the executing judicial authority, where they do not consent to their surrender, depending whether they are a national of the Member State of execution or of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, is to be interpreted to the effect that:

— a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence;

— in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.