ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — X v Skatteverket

(Case C-84/09) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2, first paragraph of Article 20 and Article 138(1) - Intra-Community acquisition of a new sailing boat - Immediate use of the goods purchased in the Member State of acquisition or in another Member State before transporting it to its final destination - Time-limit within which transport of goods to place of destination commences - Maximum duration of transport - Relevant point in time for determining whether a means of transport is new for the purposes of taxation thereof)

2011/C 13/08

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Skatteverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 2, 20 and 138 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Purchase of a new sailing boat in Member State A by an individual who is resident in Member State B for the purpose of its immediate private use by the individual in Member State A or in other Member States for a certain period before the sailing boat is transported to its final destination in Member State B — Period within which the transport of the goods to the place of destination must begin — Maximum duration of that transport — Relevant time at which to decide on whether a means of transport is new for the purposes of taxation

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first paragraph of Article 20 and Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, are to be interpreted as meaning that the classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply or acquisition cannot be made contingent on the observance of any time period during which the transport of the goods in question from the Member State of supply to the Member State of destination must be commenced or completed. In the specific case of the acquisition of a new means of transport within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b)(ii) of that directive, the determination of the intra-Community nature of the transaction must be made through an overall assessment of all the objective circumstances and the purchaser’s intentions, provided that it is supported by objective evidence which make it possible to identify the Member State in which final use of the goods concerned is envisaged.

2. The assessment of whether a means of transport which is the subject-matter of an intra-Community acquisition is new within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2006/112 must be made at the time of the supply of the goods in question by the vendor to the purchaser.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.04.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience AG

(Case C-229/09) (1)

(Patent law - Plant-protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Directive 91/414/EEC - Supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products - Grant of a certificate for a product which had obtained a provisional marketing authorisation)

2011/C 13/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hogan Lovells International LLP

Defendant: Bayer CropScience AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) 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) — Conditions governing the acquisition of a supplementary protection certificate — Possibility of having such a certificate issued on the basis of a previous marketing authorisation issued pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC — Active substance iodosulfuron

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) 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 a supplementary protection certificate from being issued for a plant protection product in respect of which a valid marketing authorisation has been granted pursuant to Article 8(1) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium)) — Fluxys SA v Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

(Case C-241/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Partial withdrawal by the applicant in the main proceedings - Changed legal framework - Court’s reply no longer necessary for the decision in the main proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 55/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fluxys SA

Defendant: Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 18 of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 1) — Automatic revision of the rules for determining the total revenue of system operators in the event of the occurrence of exceptional circumstances during a regulatory period — Compatibility with Community law of a separate tariff regime for transit activities distinct from that applicable to ‘conveyance’ and storage

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-241/09.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.08.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Cortona (Italy)) — Edyta Joanna Jakubowska v Alessandro Maneggia

(Case C-225/09) (1)

(European Union rules on the practice of the profession of lawyer - Directive 98/5/EC - Article 8 - Prevention of conflicts of interest - National rules prohibiting the practice of the profession of lawyer concurrently with employment as a part-time public employee - Removal from the register of lawyers)

2011/C 30/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Cortona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edyta Joanna Jakubowska

Defendant: Alessandro Maneggia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Cortona — Interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of the freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17), Article 8 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36), and Articles 3, 4, 10, 81 and 98 EC — National rules providing for the incompatibility of the practice of the profession of lawyer concurrently with employment as a part-time public employee — Removal from the register of lawyers who did not choose between private practice and part-time employment.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 4 EC, 10 EC, 81 EC and 98 EC do not preclude national rules which prevent part-time public officials from practising the profession of lawyer, despite their being qualified to do so, by laying down that they are to be removed from the register of the competent Bar Council;

2. Article 8 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as meaning that it is open to a host Member State to impose on lawyers registered with a Bar in that Member State who are also, whether full or part-time, in the employ of another lawyer, an association or firm of lawyers, or a public or private enterprise, restrictions on the exercise of the profession of lawyer concurrent with that employment, provided that those restrictions do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of preventing conflicts of interest and apply to all the lawyers registered in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limits laid down, all the measures necessary to abolish the aid scheme which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v Maurits Baesen

(Case C-296/09) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 13(2)(d) - Concept of ‘persons treated as’ civil servants - Employment contract with a public authority)

2011/C 55/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Defendant: Maurits Baesen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) and (d) 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 their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.) — Civil servants and persons treated as such — Concept — Person who has concluded an employment contract with a public authority

Operative part of the judgment

The meaning of ‘civil servants’ and ‘persons to be treated as such’, as referred to in Article 13(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1390/81 of 12 May 1981, is to be determined solely by reference to the national law of the Member State to which the administration employing the person concerned is subject and a person in the situation of the respondent in the main proceedings, who, in a Member State, is subject partly to the social security scheme for civil servants and partly to the social security scheme for employed persons, may thus be subject, in accordance with the provision made by Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, only to the legislation of the Member State to which the administration employing that person is subject.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace — Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury

(Case C-393/09) (1)

(Intellectual property - Directive 91/250/EEC - Legal protection of computer programs - Notion of ‘expression in any form of a computer program’ - Inclusion or non-inclusion of a program’s graphic user interface - Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyrights and related rights in the information society - Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface - Communication of a work to the public)

2011/C 63/14

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace — Svaz softwarové ochrany

Defendant: Ministerstvo kultury

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42) and Article 3(1), of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Whether or not the graphic user interface included in the expression ‘the expression in any form of a computer program’ contained in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250

Operative part of the judgment

1. A graphic user interface is not a form of expression of a computer program within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs and cannot be protected by copyright as a computer program under that directive. Nevertheless, such an interface can be protected by copyright as a work by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society if that interface is its author’s own intellectual creation.

2. Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface does not constitute communication to the public of a work protected by copyright within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
4.

Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precludes a requirement, such as that laid down in Article 2 of Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 on court experts, as amended by Law No 2004-130 of 11 February 2004, to the effect that no person may be enrolled in a national register of court experts as a translator unless he can prove that he has been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a cour d’appel, where it is found that such a requirement prevents, in the consideration of an application by a person established in another Member State who cannot prove that he has been so enrolled, the qualification obtained by that person and recognised in that other Member State from being duly taken into account for the purposes of determining whether — and, if so, to what extent — that qualification may attest to skills equivalent to those normally expected of a person who has been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a cour d’appel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-236/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental rights - Combating discrimination - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Insurance premiums and benefits - Actuarial factors - Sex as a factor in the assessment of insurance risks - Private life assurance contracts - Directive 2004/113/EC - Article 5(2) - Derogation not subject to any temporal limitation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 23 - Invalidity)

2011/C 130/06

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Validity of Article 5(2) of 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 (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37) — Gender used as a determining factor in the assessment of risk and in the calculation of insurance premiums and benefits on the basis of relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data — Life assurance contracts — Whether a difference in treatment is permissible and justified

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of 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 is invalid with effect from 21 December 2012.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 173/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA v European Commission, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (C-201/09 P), European Commission v ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA (C-216/09 P)

(Joined Cases C-201/09 P and C-216/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in steel beams - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Powers of the Commission - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Res judicata - Rights of the defence - Limitation period - Suspension of the limitation period - Effect erga omnes or inter partes - No statement of reasons)

2011/C 173/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

(C-201/09 P)

Appellant: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA (represented by: A. Vandencasteele and C. Falmagne, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA

(C-216/09 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, X. Lewis and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, avocat)

Re:

Appeals — Competition — Community market in steel beams — Agreements fixing prices in the beams sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Powers of the Commission — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Principle that penalties must fit the offence and principle of res judicata — Rules on limitation periods — Suspension of the limitation period

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the appeal in Case C-201/09 P;

3. Orders the European Commission, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal in Case C-216/09 P.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
1.

Declares that, by reason of the fact that the measures necessary for the correct and complete implementation have not been adopted — as regards the Flemish Region, Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and II thereof; — as regards the Walloon Region, Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I(8)(a) and (18)(a) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, and Article 7(1)(b) thereof; and — as regards the Brussels-Capital Region, Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, and Annex III as such, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-410/09) (1)

(Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union - Article 58 - Directive 2002/21/EC - Commission guidelines - No publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a Member State - Enforceability)

2011/C 204/13

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

In the presence of: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) — Publication of acts in the Official Journal of the European Union — Application by the regulatory authority of a Member State of Commission guidelines not published in the language of that State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding a national regulatory authority from referring to the Commission Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services in a decision by which that national regulatory authority imposes certain regulatory obligations on an operator of electronic communications services, notwithstanding the fact that those guidelines have not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of the Member State in question, even though that language is an official language of the Union.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
1.

Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 130 of the Personal Income Tax Code (Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares), which requires non-residents to appoint a tax representative in Portugal if they are in receipt of income requiring the submission of a tax return, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;