ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-120/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfilling of waste - Concept of ‘underground storage’, of ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ - Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time limit with regard to the Walloon Region)

2010/C 51/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by T. Materne, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose fully into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘underground storage’, of ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’- Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality

Operative part of the judgment

1. By failing to ensure the transposition with regard to the Walloon Region of Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Kingdom of Belgium shall bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 141 of 20.06.2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Emiliano Zanotti v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio Roma 2

(Case C-56/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Citizenship of the European Union - Articles 18 EC and 49 EC - National income tax legislation - Right to deduct total tuition fees from gross tax up to a fixed percentage - University course attended in another Member State - Imposition of a quantitative limit - Deduction up to a maximum amount laid down for registration and course fees paid for similar tuition provided by national State universities - Imposition of a territorial limit - Deduction up to a maximum amount laid down for registration and course fees paid for similar tuition provided by the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes)

2010/C 179/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emiliano Zanotti

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio Roma 2

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Interpretation of Articles 149 EC and 151 EC — National income tax legislation — Deduction of the costs of attending secondary and university courses held abroad from the gross tax payable in respect of taxable income — Limitation of the recognition of costs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as: — precluding national legislation which allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax the costs of attending university courses provided by universities situated in that Member State but excludes generally that possibility for university tuition fees incurred at a private university established in another Member State; — not precluding national legislation which allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax university tuition fees incurred at a private university established in another Member State up to the maximum amount set for the corresponding costs of attending similar courses at the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes.

2. Article 18 EC must be interpreted as: — precluding national legislation which allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax the costs of attending university courses provided by universities situated in that Member State but excludes generally that possibility for university tuition fees incurred at a university established in another Member State; — not precluding national legislation which allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax university tuition fees incurred at a university established in another Member State up to the maximum amount set for the corresponding costs of attending similar courses at the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.04.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

(Case C-38/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - The Court’s power of review - Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 - Agriculture - Community plant variety rights - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Variety a matter of common knowledge - Proof - Plant variety SUMCOL 01)

2010/C 148/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and B. Kiewiet, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2008 in Case T-187/06 Schräder v CPVO, by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 2 May 2006 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the CPVO concerning the rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the plant variety ‘SUMCOL 01’ — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Factors which can be taken into consideration in order to determine whether a variety is a matter of common knowledge — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Mr Schräder to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.
1.

Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/2

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-228/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 - Taxable amount - Sale of a car - Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars)

2010/C 195/02

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty payable on the registration of a vehicle

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 233 of 26.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Françoise-Eléonor Hanssens-Ensch (insolvency administrator of Agenor SA) v European Community

(Case C-377/09) (1)

(Article 235 EC and Article 288 EC, second paragraph - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to hear and determine actions for damages brought against the European Community on the basis of non-contractual liability - Action to make good a shortfall in the assets, within the meaning of Article 530(1) of the Belgian Code des sociétés - Action brought against the European Community by the insolvency administrator of a limited company - Jurisdiction of the national courts to hear and determine such an action)

2010/C 246/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Françoise-Eléonor Hanssens-Ensch (insolvency administrator of Agenor SA)

Defendant: European Community

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Action for damages brought by an insolvency administrator against the European Community on grounds of serious misconduct on the part of the Community in the de facto management of a commercial company, thus contributing to its insolvency — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to hear and determine an action for damages brought under national insolvency provisions on the basis of non-contractual liability

Operative part of the judgment

An action for damages brought against the European Community on the basis of non-contractual liability, even if it is brought under national legislation establishing special statutory rules which differ from the ordinary rules of law governing civil liability in the Member State concerned, does not — pursuant to Article 235 EC, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC — fall within the jurisdiction of the national courts.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

(Case C-246/09) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 8 and 9 - National procedure for the enforcement of obligations under the Directive - Period within which a claim must be lodged - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Principle of non-reduction of an earlier level of protection)

2010/C 234/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Susanne Bulicke

Defendant: Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and of general principles of Community law — Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the age at the time of hiring — National legislation laying down a time-limit of two months from receipt of the rejection of the job application, or knowledge of the discrimination, within which to bring an action seeking damages and/or compensation

Operative part of the judgment

1. The primary law of the European Union and Article 9 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule under which a victim of discrimination in recruitment on grounds of age must make a claim against the perpetrator of that discrimination within two months in order to obtain compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, provided: — firstly, that that time-limit is not less favourable than that applicable to similar domestic actions in employment law, — secondly, that the fixing of the point from which that time-limit starts to run does not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Directive. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those two conditions are met.

2. Article 8 of the Directive must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule, adopted in order to implement the Directive, which has the effect of amending earlier legislation which provided for a time-limit for claiming compensation for discrimination on grounds of sex.

(1) OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA

(Case C-104/09) (1)

(Social policy - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Directive 76/207/EEC - Articles 2 and 5 - Right to leave for employed mothers - Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father - Mother self-employed - Exclusion of the right to leave for an employed father)

2010/C 317/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez

Defendant: Sesa Start España ETT SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Interpretation of Article 13 EC and Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 25) — National legislation conferring on mothers who are employees a right to leave for feeding an unweaned child, which may be exercised by the mother or the father in the form of a reduction in working time — Exclusion where the mother is self-employed and the father is an employee — Principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), (3) and (4) and Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, must be interpreted as precluding a national measure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that female workers who are mothers and whose status is that of an employed person are entitled, in various ways, to take leave during the first nine months following the child’s birth, whereas male workers who are fathers with that same status are not entitled to the same leave unless the child’s mother is also an employed person.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision such as Paragraph 10(5) of the General Law on equal treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz), under which clauses on automatic termination of employment contracts on the ground that the employee has reached the age of retirement are considered to be valid, in so far as, first, that provision is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market and, second, the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. The implementation of that authorisation by means of a collective agreement is not, as such, exempt from any review by the courts but, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1) of that directive, must itself pursue a legitimate aim in an appropriate and necessary manner;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/4

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 November 2010 — Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA v European Commission

(Case C-36/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Service station market in Spain - Long-term exclusive fuel supply agreements - Commission decision - Right of purchase granted to certain service stations - Conditions of supply by Repsol - List of the service stations concerned - Action for annulment - Time-limits for commencing proceedings - Starting point)

2011/C 13/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, S. Beltrán Ruiz and M.L. Ruiz Ezquerra, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA (represented by: F. Lorente Hurtado and P. Vidal Martínez, abogados)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2008 in Case T-45/08 Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings given by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-213/09) (1)

(Customs union - Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 - Common Customs Tariff - Recovery of import customs duties - Imports of processed foodstuffs - Preserved mushrooms - CN subheading 2003 10 30 - Levy of an additional amount - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 30/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barsoum Chabo

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) as regards the additional amount charged on the import of products falling under subheading 2003 1030 000 — Preserved mushrooms — Principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the amount of the specific customs duty of EUR 222 per 100 kilograms of net drained weight, which applies under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff and is charged on imports of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus coming under subheading 2003 10 30 of the Combined Nomenclature in that annex and effected outside the quota opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1864/2004 of 26 October 2004 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms imported from third countries, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1995/2005 of 7 December 2005.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
3.

If products such as the cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac at issue in the main proceedings, which have been treated as not being subject to excise duty or as being exempted from that duty under Directive 92/83 and released for consumption in the Member State of manufacture, are intended to be put on the market in another Member State, the latter must treat those products in the same way in its territory, unless there is concrete, objective and verifiable evidence that the first Member State has failed to apply the provisions of that directive correctly or that, in accordance with Article 27(1) thereof, it is justifiable to adopt measures to combat any evasion, avoidance or abuse which may arise in the field of exemptions and to ensure the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA

(Case C-168/09) (1)

(Industrial and commercial property - Directive 98/71/EC - Legal protection of designs - Article 17 - Obligation concerning the cumulation of design protection with copyright protection - National law precluding copyright protection or rendering it unenforceable for a certain period in the case of designs which entered the public domain before the entry into force of the law - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

2011/C 80/05

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flos SpA

Defendant: Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA

Intervener: Assoluce — Associazione nazionale delle Imprese degli Apparecchi di Illuminazione

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs — National legislation implementing the directive by introducing copyright protection for designs — Entitlement of a Member State to extend the conditions for the granting of such protection

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes from copyright protection in that Member State designs which were protected by a design right registered in or in respect of a Member State and which entered the public domain before the date of entry into force of that legislation, although they meet all the requirements to be eligible for copyright protection.

2. Article 17 of Directive 98/71 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which — either for a substantial period of 10 years or completely — excludes from copyright protection designs which, although they meet all the requirements to be eligible for copyright protection, entered the public domain before the date of entry into force of that legislation, that being the case with regard to any third party who has manufactured or marketed products based on such designs in that State — irrespective of the date on which those acts were performed.

(1) OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.