ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany

(Case C-132/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese - Use of the name ‘Parmesan’ - Obligation on a Member State to proceed on its own initiative against the abuse of a protected designation of origin)

(2008/C 92/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March, S. Grünheid and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent), Italian Republic, (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, and A. Dittrich, Agents and M. Loschelder, Rechtsanwalt)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — Lack of measures prohibiting the use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for products which do not comply with the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’

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 Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v R.N.G. Eind

(Case C-291/05) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Right of residence for a family member who is a third-country national - Return of the worker to the Member State of which he is a national - Obligation for the worker's Member State of origin to grant a right of residence to the family member - Whether there is such an obligation where the worker does not carry on any effective and genuine activities)

(2008/C 51/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

Defendant: R.N.G. Eind

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nederlandse Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) and of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Right of residence of a family member who is a national of a non-member country — Existence of such a right in the absence of genuine and actual work on the part of the worker — Return of the worker to his or her State of origin — No right of residence in that State for the family member

Operative part of the judgment

1) In the event of a Community worker returning to the Member State of which he is a national, Community law does not require the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence to a third-country national who is a member of that worker's family because of the mere fact that, in the host Member State where that worker was gainfully employed, that third-country national held a valid residence permit issued on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992.

2) When a worker returns to the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68 as amended by Regulation No 2434/92, which applies by analogy, to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national, even where that worker does not carry on any effective and genuine economic activities. The fact that a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker's family did not, before residing in the Member State where the worker was employed, have a right under national law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national has no bearing on the determination of that national's right to reside in the latter State.

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.
1.

Declares that, by refusing to calculate and to make payment to the European Commission of the own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002, in relation to imports of military material which were exempted from customs duties, and by refusing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, until 31 May 2000, and, after that date, the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Rafael de Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union

(Case C-10/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 22/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Rafael de Bustamante Tello (represented by: R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and D. Canga Fano, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Bustamante Tello v Council (T-368/03), dismissing an action for annulment of the Council's decision of 28 July 2003 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr de Bustamante Tello to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg

(Case C-281/06) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Secondary teaching activity - Concept of ‘remuneration’ - Allowances for professional expenses - Legislation concerning tax exemption - Conditions - Remuneration paid by a national university)

(2008/C 51/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 149 EC — Teaching activity carried on as a secondary professional activity for a public-law legal person (a university) for remuneration which may be regarded as an expense allowance — National legislation restricting the tax exemption laid down for such remuneration to that paid by public-law legal persons established in the Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. A teaching activity carried out by a taxpayer of one Member State for a legal person established under public law, in the present case a university, situated in another Member State comes within the scope of Article 49 EC, even if it is carried out on a secondary basis and in a quasi-honorary capacity.

2. The restriction on the freedom to provide services constituted by the fact that national legislation confines the application of an exemption from income tax to remuneration paid by universities, that is to say, public-law legal persons, established on national territory, in return for teaching activities carried out on a secondary basis, and refuses to apply that exemption where that remuneration is paid by a university established in another Member State, is not justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.

3. The fact that the Member States are themselves competent to organise their respective education systems is not such as to render compatible with Community law national legislation which confines the benefit of a tax exemption to taxpayers carrying out activities for or on behalf of national public universities.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/21

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-374/06) (1)

(Preliminary reference - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 92/12/EEC - Products subject to excise duty - Tax markings - Irregular departure from a suspension arrangement - Theft - Release for consumption in the Member State of the theft - Non-reimbursement of the tax markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen products)

(2008/C 51/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of a Member State to repay the amount paid for tax markings attached to tobacco products which then irregularly left the duty suspension arrangements of another Member State with the consequence that excise duty was paid in the latter State — Theft of cigarettes.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003 adapting to Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity), does not preclude the legislation of a Member State which excludes the reimbursement of the amount paid to obtain tax markings issued by that Member State when those markings have been affixed to products subject to excise duty before being released for consumption in that Member State, when those products have been stolen in another Member State, involving the payment of excise duties in that other Member State, and when evidence has not been furnished that the stolen products will not be marketed in the Member State which issued those markings.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma

(Case C-257/06) (1)

(Article 28 EC - Directive 76/768/EEC - Protection of health - Cosmetic products - Importation - Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation)

(2008/C 64/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Roby Profumi Srl

Respondent: Comune di Parma

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32) — Ready-for-sale products imported from other Member States — National provisions requiring importers to communicate a full and detailed list of the substances contained in the product

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, does not preclude a national provision which, in the interests of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, requires the importer of cosmetic products to communicate to the Ministry of Health and to the Region the name or the corporate name of the business, its registered office and that of the manufacturing plant, and a full and detailed list of the substances used and the substances contained in those products.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
3)

The provisions of Article 44 of Decision No 1/95 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995, which laid down the conditions for the entry into force of the final phase of the Customs Union, read in conjunction with those of Article 47(1) to (3) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, and the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of the said Decision No 1/95 do not have direct effect before national courts and do not therefore allow individual operators validly to plead their infringement in order to resist payment of anti-dumping duties normally due. The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95 have direct effect and the individuals to whom they apply have the right to rely on them before the courts of the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

(Case C-420/06) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Regulations (EC) No 1254/1999 and (EC) No 1782/2003 - Beef and veal - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92, (EC) No 2419/2001 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Applications for ‘livestock’ aid - Suckler cow premium - Irregularities - Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals - Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 - Exclusion from the benefit of aid - Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty)

(2008/C 107/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rüdiger Jager

Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Refusal of an application for livestock aid on account of a discrepancy of more than 20 % found between the number of animals declared and the number established during a check — Retroactive application of subsequent less severe administrative penalties concerning livestock aid which applied only after the abolition of the livestock aid scheme in the Member State concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions laid down by Articles 66 and 67 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended and corrected by Commission Regulation (EC) No 239/2005 of 11 February 2005, may not be applied retroactively to an application for ‘livestock’ aid falling within the scope ratione temporis of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999, which gave rise to an exclusion from the benefit of aid under Article 10c of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-348/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Temporary staff - Action for damages - Loss of an opportunity to be recruited - Actual and certain damage - Determination of extent of reparation for damage)

(2008/C 92/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Marie-Claude Girardot (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 June 2006 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission, by which that Court fixed the level of compensation to be paid by the Commission to Ms Marie-Claude Girardot under the interim judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 at EUR 92 785, together with interest as from 6 September 2004, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points — Infringement of Article 236 EC and of the conditions governing the liability of the Commission — Method of calculation of the sum payable by a Community institution to compensate for the loss of an opportunity to be recruited in that institution resulting from an unlawful decision on its part

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. Orders Mrs Girardot to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-522/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Substances that deplete the ozone layer - Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of those substances)

(2008/C 128/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Articles 16(5) and 17(1) — Failing to adopt measures defining the minimum qualification requirements for personnel responsible for recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances referred to in Article 2 of the Regulation and contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump equipment, fire protection systems and fire extinguishers — Failure to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and absence of checks on the possible presence of leakages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, — by failing to define the minimum qualification requirements for certain members of personnel working in recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances in accordance with Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and — in respect of the Walloon Region, by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and by failing to carry out annual checks to establish the presence or not of leakages in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 2037/2000, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that regulation;

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

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Deutsche Telekom AG

(Case C-306/06) (1)

(Directive 2000/35/EC - Combating of late payment in commercial transactions - Article 3(1)(c)(ii) - Late payment - Bank transfer - Date on which payment is to be regarded as having been made)

(2008/C 128/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 01051 Telecom GmbH

Defendant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Whether a creditor may claim default interest — ‘Receipt’ by the creditor of the amount due — National rule under which the time of payment is considered to be the time when the debtor gives the transfer order to the bank and not the time when the creditor's account is credited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.