ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest

(Case C-242/09) (1)

(Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Group of companies in which staff employed by an ‘employer’ company and assigned on a permanent basis to an ‘operating’ company - Transfer of an operating company)

2010/C 346/25

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Albron Catering BV

Defendant: FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Company with all the personnel of a group of companies which makes it available to operating companies of the group according to their needs — Transfer of the activity of an operating company outside the group — Classification

Operative part of the judgment

In the event of a transfer within the meaning of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, of an undertaking belonging to a group to an undertaking outside that group, it is also possible to regard as a ‘transferor’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of that directive, the group company to which the employees were assigned on a permanent basis without however being linked to the latter by a contract of employment, even though there exists within that group an undertaking with which the employees concerned were linked by such a contract of employment.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB v European Commission

(Case C-322/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Complaint by a competitor - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 10, 13 and 20 - Commission decision not to examine the complaint further - Classification by the Commission of measures as partially not constituting State aid and partially as existing aid compatible with the common market - Article 230 EC - Concept of ‘an act open to challenge’)

2011/C 13/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 June 2009 in Case T-152/06 NDSHT v Commission by which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible the action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision, included in letters of 24 March and 28 April 2006, not to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, in consequence of the applicant’s complaint concerning aid allegedly granted to Stockholm Visitors Board AB by the Swedish authorities, in the form of various types of subsidy granted by the City of Stockholm — Acts which may be challenged

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 9 June 2009 in Case T-152/06 NDSHT v Commission;

2. Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the General Court;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the claim of NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, contained in its letters of 24 March and 28 April 2006, not to continue its examination of the complaint that that company had lodged concerning allegedly unlawful State aid granted by the City of Stockholm to Stockholm Visitors Board AB;

4. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.6.2009, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Christine Kleist

(Case C-356/09) (1)

(Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 76/207/EEC - Article 3(1)(c) - National rules facilitating the dismissal of workers who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension - Objective of promoting employment of younger persons - National rules setting the age conferring entitlement to a retirement pension at 60 years for women and 65 years for men)

2011/C 13/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Respondent: Christine Kleist

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c) 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 (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC — National rules setting the retirement age at 60 years for women and 65 years for men and facilitating the dismissal of employees when they reach that age — Dismissal by a public employer of a woman aged 60 years and entitled to retire, on the grounds of a desire to promote the employment of younger people

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) 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, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that national rules which, in order to promote access of younger persons to employment, permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women at an age five years younger than the age at which it is acquired by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that directive.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/13

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Humanplasma GmbH v Republik Österreich

(Case C-421/09) (1)

(Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - National rules prohibiting the importation of blood products provided from donations which were not entirely unpaid)

2011/C 55/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Humanplasma GmbH

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Compatibility with those provisions of national legislation prohibiting the importation of human blood where payment was made for the blood donation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28 EC, read in conjunction with Article 30 EC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the importation of blood or blood components from another Member State is permitted only on the condition, which is also applicable to national products, that the donations of blood on which those products are based were made not only without any payment being made to the donors but also without any reimbursement of the costs incurred by them in connection with those donations.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Vassiliki Stylianou Vandorou (C-422/09), Vassilios Alexandrou Giankoulis (C-425/09), Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis (C-426/09) v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

(Joined Cases C-422/09, C-425/09 and C-426/09) (1)

(Articles 39 EC and 43 EC - Directive 89/48/EC - Recognition of diplomas - ‘Professional experience’)

2011/C 30/10

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vassiliki Stylianou Vandorou (C-422/09), Vassilios Alexandrou Giankoulis (C-425/09), Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis (C-426/09)

Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Art. 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Interpretation of Art. 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1) — Access to or pursuit of a regulated profession under the same conditions as nationals — Profession of accountant/tax advisor — ‘Professional experience’

Operative part of the judgment

A national authority responsible for recognition of professional qualifications acquired in another Member State is bound, pursuant to Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, to take into account, when setting any supplementary requirements to compensate for substantial differences between the education and training undertaken by an applicant and the education and training required in the host Member State, all practical experience which, in whole or in part, covers those differences.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d'autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium)) — in proceedings concerning RTL Belgium SA, formerly TViSA

(Case C-517/09) (1)

(Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting services - Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority - Court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2011/C 63/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Collège d'autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium)

Party to the main proceedings

RTL Belgium SA, formerly TViSA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23) — Freedom to provide services — Television broadcasting services — Concept of ‘supplier’ of audiovisual services and of ‘effective control both over the selection of the programmes and over their organisation’ — Concept of national court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel in its decision of 3 December 2009.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-89/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Public health - Operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories - National legislation under which no more than 25 % of own capital may be held by shareholders who are not professional biologists - Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories - Objective of ensuring the professional independence of biologists - Objective of maintaining diversity of supply in the biomedical field - Consistency - Proportionality)

2011/C 55/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Rules concerning the operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories — National legislation under which no more than 25 % of a company’s capital may be held by shareholders not engaged in the relevant professional activity — Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories — Restrictions on freedom of establishment which may be justified by the objective of protection of public health and are proportionate

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by prohibiting biologists from holding shares in more than two companies formed in order to operate jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 16.05.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain)) — CLECE SA v María Socorro Martín Valor, Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

(Case C-463/09) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘transfer’ - Cleaning - Cleaning carried out directly by a municipal authority with recruitment of new staff)

2011/C 80/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CLECE SA

Defendants: María Socorro Martín Valor, Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha — Interpretation of Art. 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Scope — Municipal authority, acting as a public authority, taking over the cleaning of a public building

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the directive does not apply to a situation in which a municipal authority which has contracted out the cleaning of its premises to a private company decides to terminate its contract with that company and to undertake the cleaning of those premises itself by hiring new staff for that purpose.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-240/09) (1)

(Environment - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters - Direct effect)

2011/C 130/07

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

Defendant: Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic — Interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Direct effect of that provision — Interpretation of the concept of ‘acts of public authorities’ — Inclusion or not of the decisions of a public authority, the unlawfulness of which lies in their effect on the environment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 does not have direct effect in European Union law. It is, however, for the referring court to interpret, to the fullest extent possible, the procedural rules relating to the conditions to be met in order to bring administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with the objectives of Article 9(3) of that convention and the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by European Union law, in order to enable an environmental protection organisation, such as the Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, to challenge before a court a decision taken following administrative proceedings liable to be contrary to European Union environmental law.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 160/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-405/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - The European Union’s own resources - Procedures relating to the collection of import or export duties - Delay in establishing the own resources relating to those rights)

2011/C 160/06

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and M. Pere, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: B. Klein, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6 and 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 (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and 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 (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) and of Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Failure to comply, where there is post-clearance recovery, with the time limits laid down for entry in the accounts and the establishment of the Communities’ own resources

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by applying an administrative procedure according to which the European Union’s own resources are established only after the debtor has been granted a period of at least 15 days to submit his observations and by not complying, where there is post-clearance recovery, with the time limits laid down for the entry of those resources, which has the consequence of delaying payment of them, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 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 (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and 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 and under Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — ISD Polska sp. z o.o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corp., ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) v European Commission

(Case C-369/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Commission decision - Finding that aid is incompatible with the common market - Order for recovery of aid - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Determination of the ‘appropriateness’ of the interest rate applicable to the recovery of aid)

2011/C 152/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: ISD Polska sp. z o.o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corp., ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) (represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission dismissing the appellants’ actions seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C-20/04 in favour of Huta Częstochowa SA (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) in so far as it declared certain aid incompatible with the common market and ordered the Republic of Poland to recover the aid — Principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of Community acts — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Determination of the ‘appropriate’ nature of the interest rate applicable to the recovery of aid found to be incompatible with the common market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders ISD Polska sp. z o.o. and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.