ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA v European Commission, A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA

(Case C-329/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest)

2012/C 49/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Bronzolo, M. Merola and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucca, E. Righini and D. Grespan, Agents), A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-300/02 AMGA v Commission, by which the General Court rejected as inadmissible an application for the annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Iride SpA to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the request for replacement of grounds.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 — Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-92/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan and composed of elements individually devoid of any distinctive character - Figurative sign ‘BEST BUY’)

2011/C 80/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH (represented by: E. Warnke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2009 in Case T-476/08 Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY) in which the General Court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 28 August 2008, dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision which refused the registration of the figurative sign ‘BEST BUY’ as a Community trade mark for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5 to 12, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 42 — distinctive character of a mark consisting of an advertising slogan and composed of elements individually devoid of any distinctive character

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 01.05.2010
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-40/10) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Method of adjustment - Article 65 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 1 and 3 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Exception clause - Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Council’s discretion - Adjustment differing from that proposed by the Commission - Review clause allowing for intermediate adjustment of remunerations)

2011/C 30/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and D. Waelbroeck, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and A. Neergaard, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and B. Klein, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and S. Chala, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2009 L 348, p. 10) — Failure to respect the method for the adjustment of salaries and pensions for a reference period — Breach of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations of officials and of Articles 1 and 3 to 7 of Annex XI thereto — Discretion of the Council — Protection of legitimate expectations and the ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ principle — Review clause allowing the intermediate adjustment of remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 2 and 4 to 18 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

2. Maintains the effects of Articles 2 and 4 to 17 of Regulation No 1296/2009 until the entry into force of a new regulation adopted by the Council of the European Union in order to ensure compliance with this judgment;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own coasts.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 thereof;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-134/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 31 - Criteria for awarding ‘must-carry’ status - General interest objectives permitting the award of that status - Impact of the number of end-users of communications networks on the award of that status - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 130/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and C. Vrignon, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and T. Materne, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition of Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) - Criteria for the award of the ‘must-carry’ status concerning radio and television - General interest objectives for the award of such status - Impact of the number of the network’s end-users on the award of such status - Principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that Directive and Article 56 TFEU.

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

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
5.

Article 7(4)(c) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a reference only to an entry-level price in an invitation to purchase cannot be regarded, in itself, as constituting a misleading omission. It is for the national court to ascertain whether a reference to an entry-level price is sufficient for the requirements concerning the reference to a price, such as those set out in that provision, to be considered to be met. That court will have to ascertain, inter alia, whether the omission of the detailed rules for calculating the final price prevents the consumer from taking an informed transactional decision and, consequently, leads him to take a transactional decision which he would not otherwise have taken. It is also for the national court to take into consideration the limitations forming an integral part of the medium of communication used; the nature and the characteristics of the product and the other measures that the trader has actually taken to make the information available to consumers.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties applicable to infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 126 of that regulation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/16

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica de España SA v Administración del Estado

(Case C-284/10) (1)

(Directive 97/13/EC - Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services - Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - Article 6 - Interpretation - National legislation imposing an annual fee calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income)

2011/C 269/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telefónica de España SA

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (in particular, Article 6 thereof) (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Imposition of financial payments above and beyond those authorised by the directive and for a purpose not provided for therein

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State introducing a fee imposed on holders of general authorisations, calculated annually and on the basis of the gross operating income of the chargeable operators, which seeks to cover the administrative costs relating to the issue, management, control and enforcement of those authorisations, to the extent that the combined revenue received by that Member State by way of such a fee does not exceed all of those administrative costs, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v UniCredito Italiano SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-317/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and of the national figurative mark UNIZINS - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Likelihood of association - Series or family of trade marks)

2011/C 232/15

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (represented by: J. Zindel and C. Schmid, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: UniCredito Italiano SpA (represented by: G. Floridia, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2010 in Joined Cases T-303/06 and T-337/06 UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds, by which that court dismissed the claims of Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH in the context of the action brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2010 in Joined Cases T-303/06 and T-337/06 UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB).

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union.

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 146, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)) — Lidl & Companhia v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-106/10) (1)

(Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Taxable amount - Tax payable on the manufacture, assembly, admission or import of vehicles)

2011/C 298/10

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl & Companhia

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Intervener: Ministério Público

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78, read in conjunction with point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79, of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Inclusion in the taxable amount for VAT of the amount of the Portuguese ‘imposto sobre veículos’ — Tax on new vehicles payable on the manufacture, assembly, admission or import of vehicles — Tax payable once only, by the operator or vendor of the vehicle, on its introduction onto the Portuguese market

Operative part of the judgment

1. A tax such as vehicle tax (imposto sobre veículos), at issue in the main proceedings, the chargeable event for which is linked directly to the supply of a vehicle falling within the ambit of that tax and which is paid by the supplier of that vehicle, is covered by the definition of ‘taxes, duties, levies and charges’ for the purpose of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and must, pursuant to that provision, be included in the taxable amount for value added tax on the supply of that vehicle.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)) — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-263/10) (1)

(Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles)

2011/C 269/25

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Gorj — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Pollution tax on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Classification of the criterion of ‘date of first registration’ — Whether the national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU — Whether exemption from payment of the tax, introduced for certain categories of vehicle, is lawful — Possible application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
2.

EU law does not preclude national legislation which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, grants an individual a longer limitation period to recover charges from an individual acting as an intermediary, to whom he unwarrantedly paid the charges and who paid them on behalf of that first individual for the benefit of the State, whereas, if that first individual had paid those charges directly to the State, the action of that individual would have been restricted by a shorter time-limit, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of sums paid but not due, on condition that the individuals acting as intermediaries may effectively bring actions against the State for sums which may have been paid on behalf of other individuals.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria)) — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-382/10) (1)

(Industrial Policy - Food hygiene - Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - Self-service retail of bread and bakery products)

2011/C 347/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1) — Protection of foodstuffs against contamination — Self-service retail of bread and bakery products — Administrative decision by a Member State ordering the installation of a technical device preventing customers from replacing goods after having touched them by hand

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, with regard to containers used for self-service retail of bread and bakery products, the fact that a potential purchaser could conceivably have touched the foodstuffs offered for sale by hand or sneezed on them does not make it possible, on that basis alone, to hold that those foodstuffs were not protected against any contamination likely to render them unfit for human consumption, injurious to health or contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect them to be consumed in that state.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Lüdenscheid v Christel Schriever

(Case C-444/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 5(8) - Concept of a ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ - Transfer of the stock and fittings concomitant with the conclusion of a contract of lease of the business premises)

(2012/C 25/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

Defendant: Christel Schriever

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 5(8) 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) — Possibility for the Member States to exempt from VAT the transfer of a totality of assets — Lease for an indefinite period of the shop premises of a retail outlet together with the transfer to the lessee of ownership of the stock and shop fittings of the retail outlet — Possibility of categorising such a transaction as a ‘transfer of a totality of assets’ for the purposes of Article 5(8) of Directive 77/388/EEC.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(8) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a transfer of a totality of assets, or a part thereof, for the purposes of that provision, where the stock and fittings of a retail outlet are transferred concomitantly with the conclusion of a contract of lease, to the transferee, of the premises of that outlet for an indefinite period but terminable at short notice by either party, provided that the assets transferred are sufficient for the transferee to be able to carry on an independent economic activity on a lasting basis.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.