ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles — Belgium) — Ketty Leyman v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI)

(Case C-3/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security schemes - Invalidity benefits - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 40(3) - Different benefit schemes in the Member States - Disadvantages for migrant workers - Contributions on which there is no return)

2009/C 282/11

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ketty Leyman

Defendant: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) — Lawfulness, in the light of Article 18 EC, of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 149, p. 2) as amended — Invalidity allowance — Obstacle to the exercise of free movement as a result of the existence of different indemnification schemes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding application by the competent authorities of a Member State of national legislation which, in accordance with Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, makes acquisition of the right to invalidity benefits subject to the condition that a period of primary incapacity of one year has elapsed, where such application has the result that a migrant worker has paid into the social security scheme of that Member State contributions on which there is no return and is therefore at a disadvantage by comparison with a non-migrant worker.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/9

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-551/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/68/EC - Self-employed activity of reinsurance - Taking up and pursuit - National provisions prior to the directive - Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 312/14

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Yerrell and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the text of the national provisions adopted in the field covered by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 64;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55 of 7.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-472/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 18(4) - National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)

2010/C 63/21

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alstom Power Hydro

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation providing for a period of three years for the introduction of applications for the refund of excess tax.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a limitation period of three years in which to make an application for the refund of excess value added tax collected by, though not due to, the tax authority.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
1.

On a proper interpretation of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), the fact that a person as referred to in the second subparagraph of that provision, in possession of inside information, acquires or disposes of, or tries to acquire or dispose of, for his own account or for the account of a third party, either directly or indirectly, the financial instruments to which that information relates implies that that person has ‘used that information’ within the meaning of that provision, but without prejudice to the rights of the defence and, in particular, to the right to be able to rebut that presumption. The question whether that person has infringed the prohibition on insider dealing must be analysed in the light of the purpose of that directive, which is to protect the integrity of the financial markets and to enhance investor confidence, which is based, in particular, on the assurance that investors will be placed on an equal footing and protected from the misuse of inside information.
1.

Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the operator of a landfill site subject to a levy to be reimbursed by the local authority depositing the waste and which provides for financial penalties to be imposed on that operator for late payment of the levy, on condition that those rules are accompanied by measures to ensure that the levy is actually reimbursed within a short time and that all the costs of recovery, and in particular, the costs resulting from late payment of amounts which that authority owes to the site operator on that account, including costs incurred in order to avoid any financial penalty which might be imposed on the site operator, are passed on in the price to be paid by the authority to that operator. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Netherlands) — K. van Dijk v Gemeente Kampen

(Case C-470/08) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Transfer of payment entitlements - Expiry of the lease - Obligations of the lessee and the lessor)

2010/C 63/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Arnhem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K. van Dijk

Defendant: Gemeente Kampen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Interpretation of 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 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1) — Integrated system for the management and supervision of certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Transfer of payment entitlements — Obligations on the lessor and lessee.

Operative part of the judgment

Community law does not require a lessee, on the expiry of the lease, to deliver to the lessor the leased land, including the payment entitlements accumulated thereon or relating thereto, or to pay him compensation.

(1) OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-135/08) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 17 EC - Nationality of one Member State acquired by birth - Nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation - Loss of original nationality by reason of that naturalisation - Loss with retroactive effect of nationality acquired by naturalisation on account of deception practised in that acquisition - Statelessness leading to loss of the status of citizen of the Union)

2010/C 113/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Janko Rottmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 17 EC — Acquisition of the nationality of a Member State entailing the definitive loss of the nationality of the Member State of origin — Loss of the new nationality with retroactive effect as a result of deception in connection with its acquisition — Statelessness of the person concerned with the consequence of loss of citizenship of the Union

Operative part of the judgment

It is not contrary to European Union law, in particular to Article 17 EC, for a Member State to withdraw from a citizen of the Union the nationality of that State acquired by naturalisation when that nationality was obtained by deception, on condition that the decision to withdraw observes the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-496/08 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Success in internal competitions for change of category under the old Staff Regulations - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules for classification in grade - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

2010/C 113/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen and K. Zejdová, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ application for annulment of the individual decisions classifying them in grade, taken pursuant to transitional measures laid down in Annex XIII and, in particular, Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Ending, following entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, of classification in grade following success in an internal competition held under the old Staff Regulations — Whether interest in bringing an action retained despite the contested decisions becoming obsolete — Principles of the retaining of acquired rights and the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross appeal;

3. Orders Ms Angé Serrano, Mr M. Bras, Orcajo Teresa, Decoutere, Hau, Solana Ramos, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21. 2. 2009.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-346/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - Pollution and nuisance - Combustion plants - Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air - Directive not applied to the Lynemouth power plant (United Kingdom))

(2010/C 161/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, and D. Wyatt QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement, so far as concerns the power plant in Lynemouth, Northumberland, of Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1) — Failure to have achieved significant reductions in emissions from that plant within the period prescribed in Article 4(3) of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to apply Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants to the power plant operated by Rio Tinto Alcan Smelting and Power (UK) Ltd in Lynemouth, in north-east England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

(Case C-96/08) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Vocational training levy - Basis for calculating the levy to be paid by undertakings established in the national territory - Account taken of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State - Double taxation - Whether it is possible to reduce gross liability to the levy)

2010/C 148/06

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pest Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi Kft.

Defendants: Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Pest Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — National rules requiring account to be taken, for the purposes of determining the basis for the vocational training levy of a company established on national territory, of the wage costs of workers employed in a branch established in another Member State, even if the company in question is subject to an equivalent charge, by reason of the employment of those workers, in that other Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude Member State legislation under which an undertaking, which has its seat in that State, is obliged to pay a levy such as the vocational training levy, the amount of which is calculated on the basis of its wage costs including those wage costs incurred at a branch of that undertaking established in another Member State, if, in practice, such an undertaking is prevented, with regard to that branch, from benefiting from the possibilities provided for in that legislation of reducing that levy or from having access to those possibilities.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
2.

For the purpose of applying legislation of a Member State on games of chance which is compatible with Article 49 EC, the national courts are not required to determine, in each case, whether the implementing measure intended to ensure compliance with that legislation is suitable for achieving the objective of that legislation and is compatible with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that measure is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of that legislation and does not include any additional restriction over and above that which arises from the legislation itself. Whether that implementing measure was adopted as a result of action by the public authorities to ensure compliance with national legislation or of an application by an individual in the context of a civil action to protect his rights under that legislation has no bearing on the outcome of the dispute before the national court.
1.

Article 71 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the main proceedings, the rules governing jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement that are laid down by a convention on a particular matter, such as the lis pendens rule set out in Article 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed at Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed at Geneva on 5 July 1978, and the rule relating to enforceability set out in Article 31(3) of that convention, apply provided that they are highly predictable, facilitate the sound administration of justice and enable the risk of concurrent proceedings to be minimised and that they ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by the regulation, the free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and mutual trust in the administration of justice in the European Union (favor executionis).
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in Portugal Telecom SGPS SA special rights, such as those provided for in that company’s articles of association for the State and other public sector bodies, allocated in connection with the State’s golden shares in Portugal Telecom SGPS SA, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — Lafarge SA v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-413/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plasterboard - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Burden of proof - No proper statement of reasons - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Penalty - Repeated infringement - Stage at which the deterrent effect of the fine is to be taken into account)

2010/C 221/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Lafarge SA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet, E. Paroche, H. Kanellopoulos and C. Medina, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents), Council of the European Union

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case T-54/03 Lafarge SA v Commission rejecting the appellant’s action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 November 2002, which imposed a fine on the appellant pursuant to Article 81 EC — Cartel fixing prices in the plasterboard sector — Infringement of the obligation to state adequate grounds and the rules governing the burden of proof — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as regards the calculation of the fine — Concept of ‘repeated infringement’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Lafarge SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-512/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Medical treatment proposed in another Member State and requiring the use of major medical equipment - Requirement of prior authorisation - Planned treatment provided in another Member State - Difference in the levels of cover in force in the Member State of affiliation and in the Member State of stay, respectively - Insured person’s right to assistance by the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)

2010/C 328/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, G. Rozet and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: A. Czubinski and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by I. Rao, and subsequently by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirement of prior authorisation, from the State of insurance, in order to obtain repayment for certain non-hospital treatment received in another Member State — Failure to pay the difference between the amount received by the insured, who receives hospital treatment in a Member State other than the Member State of insurance, and the amount to which he would have been entitled had he received the same treatment in the Member State of insurance — Unjustified obstacles to the freedom to provide services

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.