ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1)

Declares that, in so far as Article 10 of Law No 93 of 23 March 2001 concerning provisions on the environment and Article 1(17) and (19) of Law No 443 of 21 December 2001 delegating to the Government matters of infrastructure and strategic installations of production and of other action to boost production excluded from the scope of the national legislation relating to waste excavated earth and rocks intended for actual re-use for filling, backfilling, embanking or as aggregates, with the exception of those from contaminated and decontaminated sites with a concentration of pollutants above the acceptable limits laid down by the regulations in force, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;
1.

Declares that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 EC, Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and, consequently, the Common Customs Tariff by exempting imports of military equipment from customs duties in the period from 1998 until 2002 and has also failed to fulfil its obligations under 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, and 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, by refusing to calculate, declare and to make available to the European Commission the own resources relating thereto and by refusing to pay default interest payable because of the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-371/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Articles 11 and 15(2) - Public service contracts - Award of IT services of the municipality of Mantova (Italy) - Direct award without prior publication of a notice to tender)

(2008/C 223/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, C. Zadra, L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11 and Article 15(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1) — Award of IT services for the Commune di Mantova — Direct award without prior publication of a contract notice

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, E.ON Kernkraft GmBH, RWE Power AG, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH, formerly Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG

(Case C-176/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Aid allegedly granted by the German authorities to nuclear power stations - Provisions for closure of power stations and disposal of radioactive waste - Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance - Absolute bar)

(2008/C 22/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH (represented by: D. Fouquet and P. Becker, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent), E.ON Kernkraft GmBH, RWE Power AG, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH, formerly Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG (represented by: U. Karpenstein and D. Sellner, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission in which the Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear power stations for the purpose of disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC — Obligation of the Commission to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC where there are difficulties of assessment or doubts

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission;

2. Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought by Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by the operators of nuclear power stations for the purpose of the safe disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC;

3. Orders Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

(1) OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/22

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft v Franz Götz

(Case C-408/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Economic activity - Taxable persons - Bodies governed by public law - Milk-quota sales point - Transactions of agricultural intervention agencies and staff shops - Significant distortions of competition - Geographic market)

(2008/C 51/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft

Defendant: Franz Götz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of and points 7 and 12 in Annex D to 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) — Allocation of reference quantities of milk invoiced without a separate statement of the VAT — Assessment of the classification as a taxable person of a body established by a Land which transfers reference quantities of milk to milk producers against prepayment

Operative part of the judgment

1. A milk-quota sales point is neither an agricultural intervention agency within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex D thereto, nor a staff shop within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of that directive, read in conjunction with point 12 of Annex D thereto;

2. The treatment of a milk-quota sales point as a non-taxable person in respect of activities or transactions in which it engages as a public authority, within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, as amended by Directive 2001/4/EC, cannot give rise to significant distortions of competition, by reason of the fact that it is not faced, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with private operators providing services which are in competition with the public services. As that finding applies in respect of all milk-quota sales points operating within a given delivery reference quantity transfer area, defined by the Member State concerned, that area constitutes the relevant geographic market for the purpose of establishing whether there are significant distortions of competition.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-294/06) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - First indent of Article 6(1) - Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Leave to enter as a student or as an au pair - Effect on the right to remain)

(2008/C 64/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Concept of a worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish national employed as an au pair after obtaining leave to remain for two years in order to pursue that activity — Turkish nationals holding leave to remain to follow a course of study and holding permission to work for a maximum of 20 hours per week during term time

Operative part of the judgment

The fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association. Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 — Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-211/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition provided for by the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Definition of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 64/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Herta Adam (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission dismissing an action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Adam to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

(Case C-293/06) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Taxation of companies - Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted by a company established in one Member State to its permanent establishment in another Member State)

(2008/C 107/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Currency exchange loss incurred by a company established in one Member State at the time of repatriation of the start-up capital which it had granted to a permanent establishment set up in another Member State — Not possible to take that loss into account for purposes of taxation in the Member State in which the company is established

Operative part of the judgment

1) It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.

2) It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any tax-free profits.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation

(Case C-425/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(a) and (d) - Leasing - Artificial division of the supply into a number of parts - Effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Exemptions - Abusive practice - Conditions)

(2008/C 92/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

Defendant: Part Service Srl, in liquidation

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation 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) — Leasing transaction split into a number of separate contracts with the effect of obtaining a tax advantage — Interpretation of the concept of abuse of rights as defined in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Sixth Council Directive 77/338/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, must be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim of the transaction or transactions at issue.

2. It is for the national court to determine, in light of the ruling on the interpretation of Community law provided by the present judgment, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to constitute an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam, Netherlands) — K.D. Chuck v Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

(Case C-331/06) (1)

(Old-age insurance - Worker who is a national of a Member State - Social security contributions - Separate periods - Different Member States - Calculation of periods of insurance - Application for a pension - Residence in a non-Member State)

(2008/C 128/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.D. Chuck

Defendant: Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 48 of Council Regulation (EEC) 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, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Old-age pension insurance — Calculation of insurance periods of a national of a Member State who has worked in two other Member States — Residence in a non-member State at the date of retirement

Operative part of the judgment

Article 48(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) 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, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, requires the competent institution of the last Member State in which a worker who is a national of a Member State resided to take into account, in calculating the old age pension of that worker, who, when he submits his pension claim, is resident in a non-Member State, of the periods worked in another Member State under the same conditions as if that worker still resided in the European Community.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart) — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG

(Case C-412/06) (1)

(Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577/EEC - First paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) - Contract for long-term credit - Right of cancellation)

(2008/C 128/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Cancellation of a loan contract, negotiated away from business premises, to finance the acquisition of shares in a real property fund — National legislation under which the right of cancellation expires one month after both parties have performed in full their contractual obligations, even where a consumer has not been informed of that right

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.

(1) OJ C 310 of 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany)) — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen

(Case C-352/06) (1)

(Social security - Child benefit - Suspension of entitlement to benefits - Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Legislation applicable - Granting of benefits in the Member State of residence which is not the competent Member State)

(2008/C 171/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Bosmann

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) 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, English Special Edition Series I, Chapter 1971 (II), p. 416) — Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1972 (I), p. 159) — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Interpretation of general principles — Child benefit for dependent children — Suspension of benefits paid in the State of residence — Right to benefits of the same type in the State of employment.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) 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, 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, does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.

2. It is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker, in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.