ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, in so far as service contracts in respect of occupational old-age pensions were awarded directly, without a call for tenders at European Union level, to bodies or undertakings referred to in Paragraph 6 of the Collective agreement on the conversion, for local authority employees, of earnings into pension savings (Tarifvertrag zur Entgeltungwandlung für Arbeitnehmer im kommunalen öffentlichen Dienst), in 2004 by local authorities or local authority undertakings which then had more than 4 505 employees, in 2005 by local authorities or local authority undertakings which then had more than 3 133 employees and in 2006 and in 2007 by local authorities or local authority undertakings which then had more than 2 402 employees, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations, until 31 January 2006 under Article 8, in conjunction with Titles III to VI, of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and from 1 February 2006 under Article 20, in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55, of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Michael Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

(Case C-382/08) (1)

(Air transport - Licence for the organisation of commercial balloon flights - Article 12 EC - Condition of residence or company seat - Administrative sanctions)

2011/C 80/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Neukirchinger

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of administrative criminal penalties, the organisation of commercial balloon flights without a national licence, the issue of which is subject to the condition that the applicant for the licence has a place of residence or registered office within the country

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 EC precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the organisation of balloon flights in that Member State and subject to administrative sanctions in the event of failure to comply with that legislation,

requires a person resident or established in another Member State, who is licensed in that second Member State to operate commercial balloon flights, to have a place of residence or company seat in the first Member State, and

obliges that person to obtain a new licence, without due account being taken of the fact that the conditions of issue are, essentially, the same as those which apply to the licence already issued to that person in the second Member State.

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc Schneider

(Case C-137/08) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Criteria for assessment - Examination by the national court of its own motion of the unfairness of a term conferring jurisdiction - Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)

2011/C 13/02

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: Ferenc Schneider

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, 29) — Contractual term granting jurisdiction to a judicial body which is located closer to the registered office of the service provider than the place of establishment of the consumer — Power of the national courts to assess, of their own motion, the unfair nature of a term granting jurisdiction in the context of the examination of its jurisdiction — Criteria for the assessment of the unfair nature of the term

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not preclude a provision of national law which provides that the court which initiates a preliminary reference procedure is at the same time to inform, of its own motion, the Minister with responsibility for Justice in the Member State concerned;

2. Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union extends to the interpretation of the concept of ‘unfair term’ used in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and in the annex thereto, and to the criteria which the national court may or must apply when examining a contractual term in the light of the provisions of that Directive, bearing in mind that it is for that court to determine, in the light of those criteria, whether a particular contractual term is actually unfair in the circumstances of the case;

3. The national court must investigate of its own motion whether a term conferring exclusive territorial jurisdiction in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which is the subject of a dispute before it, falls within the scope of Directive 93/13 and, if it does, assess of its own motion whether such a term is unfair.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/2

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

(Case C-50/08) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority)

2011/C 204/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Romania (represented by: C. Osman, A. Gheorghiu, A. Stoia and A. Popescu, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — National legislation making access to the profession of notary and its pursuit subject to a nationality requirement — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Scope of the exception relating to activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Requirement of direct and specific connection with such exercise

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-13/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2006/86/EC - Traceability requirements - Notification of serious adverse reactions and events - Technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

2010/C 24/24

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Calmieri, acting as Agent, and F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive;

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
2.

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that where services are provided in several Member States, the court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine all the claims arising from the contract is the court in whose jurisdiction the place of the main provision of services is situated. For a commercial agency contract, that place is the place of the main provision of services by the agent, as it appears from the provisions of the contract or, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract or, where it cannot be established on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 and Titles III to VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, on the grounds that the municipality of Bonn and the Müllverwertungsanlage Bonn GmbH awarded a public service contract on the disposal of bio-waste and green waste without carrying out a procedure for the award of public works including Europe-wide tendering.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Enosi Efopliston Aktoploïas and Others v Ipourgos Emporikis Naftilias, Ipourgos Aigaiou

(Case C-122/09) (1)

(Maritime transport - Maritime cabotage - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Temporary exemption from the implementation of that regulation - Obligation on Member States to refrain from adopting, before expiry of the period of exemption, provisions liable seriously to compromise the application of that regulation)

(2010/C 161/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Enosi Efopliston Aktoploïas, ANEK, Minoïkes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou, Blue Star Ferries

Defendants: Ipourgos Emporikis Naftilias, Ipourgos Aigaiou

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 4 and 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — Temporary exemption from implementation of the regulation — Obligation on Member States not to adopt, before the period of exemption expires, provisions liable to compromise the full and complete application of the regulation — Right of individuals to rely on the regulation to challenge the validity of national provisions having such an effect

Operative part of the judgment

Assuming that the Greek legislature was required, for the duration of the exemption in Greece from implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), to refrain from adopting provisions liable seriously to compromise the full and effective application of the regulation from 1 January 2004, the date on which that period of exemption expired, such full and effective application is not seriously compromised simply because in 2001 the Greek legislature adopted provisions contrary to the regulation which are exhaustive and permanent in nature and do not lay down that they cease to apply from 1 January 2004.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland)) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-99/09) (1)

(Telecommunication services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 30(2) - Portability of telephone numbers - Power of the national regulatory authorities - Direct charge to the subscriber - Disincentive - Taking costs into consideration)

2010/C 234/17

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 30(2) 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) — Portability of telephone numbers — Obligation on the national regulatory authority, when performing the obligation to ensure that the charge to be paid by consumers for use of the porting facility does not act as a disincentive, to take into account the costs incurred by mobile telephone operators in providing that facility

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30(2) 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) is to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive. However, it retains the power to fix the maximum amount of that charge levied by operators at a level below the costs incurred by them, when a charge calculated only on the basis of those costs is liable to dissuade users from making use of the portability facility.

(1) OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — Barbara Becker v Harman International Industries, Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-51/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark Barbara Becker - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word marks BECKER and BECKER ONLINE PRO - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs)

2010/C 221/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Barbara Becker (represented by: P. Baronikians, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Harman International Industries, Inc. (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 2 December 2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker), in which the Court of First Instance annulled Decision R 502/2006-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 March 2007 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision refusing the registration of the word mark ‘Barbara Becker’ for goods in Class 9 in opposition proceedings brought by Harman International Industries, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 December 2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP) v Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-151/09) (1)

(Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Employee representatives - Autonomy of the entity transferred)

2010/C 246/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP)

Defendants: Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses — Obligation to preserve the status and the function of the employee representatives in an undertaking or business, where the undertaking or business preserves its autonomy following the transfer — Concept of autonomy

Operative part of the judgment

A transferred economic entity preserves its autonomy, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, provided that the powers granted to those in charge of that entity, within the organisational structures of the transferor, namely the power to organise, relatively freely and independently, the work within that entity in the pursuit of its specific economic activity and, more particularly, the powers to give orders and instructions, to allocate tasks to employees of the entity concerned and to determine the use of assets available to the entity, all without direct intervention from other organisational structures of the employer, remain, within the organisational structures of the transferee, essentially unchanged. The mere change of those ultimately in charge cannot in itself be detrimental to the autonomy of the entity transferred, except where those who have become ultimately in charge have available to them powers which enable them to organise directly the activities of the employees of that entity and therefore to substitute their decision making within that entity for that of those immediately in charge of the employees.

(1) OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Article 3 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) must be interpreted as follows: — Article 3(1) precludes national legislation under which, for private works not subject to planning permission on a construction site on which more than one contractor is to be present, it is possible to derogate from the requirement imposed on the client or project supervisor to appoint a coordinator for safety and health matters at the project preparation stage or, in any event, before the works commence; — Article 3(2) precludes national legislation under which the requirement for the coordinator responsible for the execution stage of the works to draw up a safety and health plan is confined to the situation in which more than one contractor is engaged on a construction site involving private works that are not subject to that obligation and which does not use the particular risks such as those listed in Annex II to the directive as criteria for that requirement.