ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz

(Case C-321/07) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Holding of driving licences from different Member States - Validity of a driving licence issued before the accession of a State - Withdrawal of a second driving licence issued by the Member State of residence - Recognition of a driving licence issued before the issue of a second licence later withdrawn on the ground that the holder was unfit - Expiry of the period accompanying a measure withdrawing a driving licence during which no application may be made for the issue of a new driving licence)

2009/C 90/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mannheim

Party in the main proceedings

Karl Schwarz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Mannheim — Interpretation of Articles 7(5) and 8(2) and 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p.1) — Holder of several driving licences — Validity of a licence issued before accession by the Member State of which the defendant is a national — Following the period of the temporary ban on obtaining a new licence, non-recognition, on its territory, by the Member State of residence of a driving licence obtained, before accession, in another Member State before the expiry of a temporary ban on obtaining a new licence

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(5) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a national of a Member State from holding simultaneously two valid driving licences, one of which is a Community licence and the other a driving licence issued by another Member State where both licences were obtained before the accession of the latter State to the European Union.

2. Article 1 and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State before that State’s accession to the European Union if that licence was issued prior to a driving licence issued by the first Member State, in which the second driving licence has been withdrawn on the ground of its holder’s unfitness to drive. The fact that such refusal occurs after the period accompanying that withdrawal during which no application could be made for the issue of a new driving licence is irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst

(Case C-533/07) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - The concept of ‘provision of services’ - Contract assigning intellectual property rights)

2009/C 141/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch

Defendant: Gisela Weller-Lindhorst

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘provision of services’ and of the ‘place in a Member State where the services should have been provided’ — Jurisdiction over a case relating to the payment of royalties in respect of a licence to exploit a musical work

Operative part of the judgment

1. The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is to be interpreted to the effect that a contract under which the owner of an intellectual property right grants its contractual partner the right to use that right in return for remuneration is not a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of that provision.

2. In order to determine, under Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court having jurisdiction over an application for remuneration owed pursuant to a contract under which the owner of an intellectual property right grants to its contractual partner the right to use that right, reference must continue to be made to the principles which result from the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.

(1) OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-559/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Article 141 EC - Equal pay for male and female workers - National civil and military pension regime - Different treatment with regard to retirement age and minimum required service - Justification - Absence)

2009/C 113/16

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: F. Spathopoulos, K. Bokovits, A. Samoni-Rantou, E.-M. Mamouna and S. Vodina, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 141 EC — Infringement of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers — National civil and military retirement pensions regime prescribing a retirement age that can vary according to sex

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions which provide for differences between male and female workers with regard to retirement age and minimum required service under the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code instituted by Presidential Decree No 166/2000 of 3 July 2000, in the version applicable to the present case, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 May 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Fritz Trennheuser, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07) v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales

(Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Public health - Pharmacies - Provisions restricting the right to operate a pharmacy to pharmacists alone - Justification - Reliability and quality of the provision of medicinal products to the public - Professional independence of pharmacists)

2009/C 153/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Fritz Trennheuser, Deutscher Apothekerverband eV (C-171/07) and Helga Neumann-Seiwert (C-172/07)

Defendants: Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales

Joined party: DocMorris NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 43 EC and 48 EC — Authorisation to operate pharmacies restricted, under national legislation, to pharmacists who personally manage the pharmacy — Authorisation given by the national authorities to a legal person in view of the direct effect of Community law — Conditions under which national law should be disapplied

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main actions, which prevents persons not having the status of pharmacist from owning and operating pharmacies.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Austria)) — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz

(Case C-459/07) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Unlawful introduction of goods - Seizure and confiscation - Extinction of the customs debt - Moment at which seizure must take place)

2009/C 141/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Veli Elshani

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Linz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Interpretation of Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code — Extinction of the customs debt linked to the seizure of goods upon their unlawful introduction — Seizure of goods in the Member State of destination — Removal of the goods — Moment at which the debt is extinguished

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to lead to the extinction of the customs debt, the seizure of goods unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the Community must take place before those goods go beyond the first customs office situated inside that territory.

2. There is no need to reply to the second question.

(1) OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-250/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Award of a contract without a prior call for competition - Conditions - Communication of the reasons for the rejection of a tender - Time-limit)

2009/C 180/05

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec, agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki, agent, V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 4, 20(2) and 41(4) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Tender procedure for the study, supply, transport, installation and bringing into operation of two thermoelectric units for the thermoelectric station at Atherinolakkos, Crete

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by being unjustifiably late in replying to a tenderer’s request for information concerning the reasons for the rejection of its tender, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.07.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Imagination Technologies Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-542/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Refusal to register - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(3) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Use after the date on which the application for registration was filed)

2009/C 180/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Imagination Technologies Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, instructed by P. Brownlow and N. Jenkins, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 in Case T-461/04 Imagination Technologies v OHIM (Pure Digital), by which the Court dismissed an action for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 September 2004 in Case R 108/2004-2 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘PURE DIGITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Imagination Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom

(Case C-482/07) (1)

(Patent law - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulations (EEC) No 1768/92 and (EC) No 1610/96 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Conditions for granting certificates to two or more holders of basic patents for the same product - Clarification on the existence of pending applications)

2009/C 256/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AHP Manufacturing BV

Defendant: Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c), 7(1) and (2), 9 and 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) and of recital 17 and the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — Issue of a certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product which, at the time of submission of the application for a certificate, is the subject of one or more certificates issued to one or more holders of other basic patents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, considered in the light of the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product for which, at the time the certificate application is submitted, one or more certificates have already been granted to one or more holders of one or more other basic patents.

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme, BellandVision GmbH

(Case C-385/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 82 EC - System for the collection and recovery of used packaging in Germany - ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ logo - Fee payable under a trade mark agreement - Abuse of dominant position - Exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Reasonable time - Principle of effective legal protection - Articles 58 and 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)

2009/C 220/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Wagner and B. Meyring, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and R. Sauer, acting as Agents), Vfw GmbH (represented by: H. Wissel, Rechtsanwalt), Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Westrup, Rechtsanwälte), Belland Vision GmbH (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Westrup, Rechtsanwälte)

Intervener in support of the Commission: Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH (represented by: W. Pauly, A. Oexle and J. Kempkes, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01 Duales System Deutschland v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/34493 — DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1) — Abuse of a dominant position — Collection and recovery system for packaging put into circulation in Germany and carrying the Der Grüne Punkt logo

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs, together with the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and BellandVision GmbH.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-536/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Contract between a public body and a private undertaking for the lease to the former of exhibition halls to be built by the latter - Private undertaking to be paid by means of a monthly rent for a period of 30 years)

2009/C 312/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by H.-J. Prieß, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Failure to organise an open procedure for award of a contract before the conclusion of a contract between the City of Cologne and a private investment firm concerning the rent by the city, for a fixed period of 30 years in consideration for a total rent of more than EUR 600 million, of four exhibition halls to be constructed by that private firm in accordance with detailed contract documents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(4) and 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne concluded the contract of 6 August 2004 with Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 15 bis 18 GbR, now Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 8-11 GbR, without applying the procedure for the award of public contracts laid down by those provisions;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Sea s.r.l. v Comune di Ponte Nossa

(Case C-573/07) (1)

(Public procurement - Award procedures - Contract relating to a service for the collection, transport and disposal of urban waste - Awarded without any call for tenders - Awarded to a company limited by shares whose capital is wholly owned by public bodies but under whose statutes a private capital holding is possible)

2009/C 267/24

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sea s.r.l.

Defendant: Comune di Ponte Nossa

Third party: Servizi Tecnologici Comuni — Se.T.Co. SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Procedures for the award of public contracts — Public services for the collection, transport and disposal of urban waste — Direct award of a contract to a limited company with share capital belonging entirely to the public sector but where the statutes of that company allow for the possibility of private investment

Operative part of the judgment

It is not contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality or the obligation of transparency arising therefrom for a public service contract to be awarded directly to a company limited by shares with wholly public capital so long as the public authority which is the contracting authority exercises over that company control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and so long as the company carries out the essential part of its activities with the authority or authorities controlling it.

Without prejudice to the determination by the court making the reference of the effectiveness of the relevant provisions of the statutes, the control exercised over that company by the shareholder authorities may be regarded as similar to that which they exercise over their own departments in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, when:

— that company’s activity is limited to the territory of those authorities and is carried on essentially for their benefit, and

— through the bodies established under the company’s statutes made up of representatives of those authorities, the latter exercise conclusive influence on both the strategic objectives of the company and on its significant decisions.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.