ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-391/07) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Export refunds on agricultural products - Article 16 - Differentiated refund - Proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed - Production of a copy or photocopy of the transport documents - Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 - Granting of export refunds on cereals - Article 13 - Derogation from Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)

(2009/C 19/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (OJ 1995 L 147, p. 7) — Simplified procedure: obligation to produce transport documents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1259/97 of 1 July 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operator provides proof that a quantity of at least 1 500 tonnes of cereal product has left the customs territory of the European Community on board a vessel suitable for sea transport does not release him from the obligation laid down in Article 16(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products to produce a copy or a photocopy of the transport documents.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Michaniki AE v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias

(Case C-213/07) (1)

(Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 24 - Grounds for excluding participation in a contract - National measures establishing an incompatibility between the public works sector and that of the media)

(2009/C 44/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michaniki AE

Defendants: Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias

Interveners in support of the defendants: Elliniki Technodomiki Techniki Ependitiki Viomichaniki AE, successor in law to Pantechniki AE, Sindesmos Epikhiriseon Periodikou Tipou

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Question of whether or not the list of grounds for excluding a contractor from participation in the contract is exhaustive

Operative part of the judgment

(1) The first paragraph of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, must be interpreted as listing exhaustively the grounds based on objective considerations of professional quality which are capable of justifying the exclusion of a contractor from participation in a public works contract. However, that directive does not preclude a Member State from providing for further exclusionary measures designed to ensure observance of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency, provided that such measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective;

(2) Community law must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, whilst pursuing the legitimate objectives of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, establishes an irrebuttable presumption that the status of owner, partner, main shareholder or management executive of an undertaking active in the media sector is incompatible with that of owner, partner, main shareholder or management executive of an undertaking which contracts with the State or a legal person in the public sector in the broad sense to perform a works, supply or services contract.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-407/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(f) - Exemptions - Conditions - Services supplied by independent groups - Services supplied to one or several members of the group)

(2009/C 32/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13.A(1)(f) 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) — Services supplied by independent associations for the purpose of providing their members with services which are directly necessary for the exercise of an exempted activity

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(f) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other conditions in that provision are met, services supplied to their members by independent groups are covered by the exemption contained in that provision, even if those services are supplied only to one or several of those members.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-349/07) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Post-clearance recovery of customs import duties)

(2009/C 44/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Intervening party: Ministério Público

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Compatibility with Community law and the principle of the rights of the defence of national provisions of fiscal administrative procedure concerning the periods for the exercise of the taxpayer's right to a hearing — Administrative procedure for the post-clearance payment of import duties on goods from the far east

Operative part of the judgment

1. With regard to recovery of a customs debt for the purpose of effecting post-clearance recovery of customs import duties, a period of 8 to 15 days allowed to an importer suspected of having committed a customs offence in which to submit its observations complies in principle with the requirements of Community law.

2. It is for the national court before which the case has been brought to ascertain, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, whether the period actually allowed to that importer made it possible for it to be given a proper hearing by the customs authorities.

3. The national court must also ascertain whether, in the light of the period which elapsed between the time when the authorities concerned received the importer's observations and the date on which they took their decision, they can be deemed to have taken due account of the observations sent to them.

(1) OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG

(Case C-281/07) (1)

(Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Communities' financial interests - Article 3 - Recovery of an export refund - Error on the part of the national authorities - Limitation period)

(2009/C 69/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant: Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Applicability of the time-limit laid down by Regulation No 2988/95 in the case of recovery of an export refund granted as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities but without any wrongdoing on the part of the trader concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The limitation period of four years laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is not applicable to a claim for recovery of an export refund unduly granted to an exporter as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities, where that exporter did not commit any irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
1.

The common system of value added tax, as defined in the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes and in Articles 2 and 10(1)(a) and (2) 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 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004, does not preclude a Member State from providing in its legislation for an administrative penalty which may be imposed on persons liable to value added tax, such as the ‘additional tax’ provided for in Article 109(5) and (6) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the taxation of goods and services) of 11 March 2004.
1.

— declares that, by withdrawing from the market products based on medicinal herbs lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State, under an administrative practice consisting in withdrawing from the market any product based on medicinal herbs not included either in the annex to the Ministerial Order on the creation of a special register of medicinal herb-based preparations (Orden Ministerial por la que se establece el registro especial para preparados a base de especies vegetales) of 3 October 1973, as amended, or in the annex to the Order SCO/190/2004 of the Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs, establishing the list of plants sale of which to the public is prohibited or restricted because of their toxicity (Orden SCO/190/2004 por la que se establece la lista de plantas cuya venta al público queda prohibida o restringida por razón de su toxicidad) of 28 January 2004, other than a preparation the constituents of which are exclusively one or more medicinal herbs or whole parts of such herbs, or crushed or powdered parts of such herbs, on the ground that that product is deemed to be a medicinal product marketed without the requisite marketing authorisation, and — by not communicating that measure to the Commission of the European Communities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 February 2009 — Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament

(Case C-308/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules concerning the expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Recovery of improperly paid sums by means of offsetting - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Right to an impartial tribunal - Res judicata - Principle of sound administration)

2009/C 90/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (represented by: D. Rouget, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: C. Karamarcos, H. Krück and D. Moore, then by the latter two and A. Padowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2007 in Case T-132/06 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded the appellant’s action for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 22 March 2006, adopted to implement the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 December 2005 in Case T-146/04 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament — Interpretation of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and of the principle of impartiality — Interpretation of Article 27 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/13

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy)) — Luigi Scarpelli v NEOS Banca SpA

(Case C-509/07) (1)

(Directive 87/102/EEC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Breach of contract of sale)

2009/C 141/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bergamo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luigi Scarpelli

Defendant: NEOS Banca SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bergamo — Interpretation of Article 11(2) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48) — Consumer credit — Right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for breach of the contract of sale relating to the goods financed by the credit

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit is to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an agreement between a supplier and a grantor of credit whereunder credit is made available exclusively by that grantor of credit to customers of that supplier is not a necessary condition for the right of those customers to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit — where the supplier is in breach of contract — in order to obtain the termination of the credit agreement and the subsequent reimbursement of the sums already paid to the grantor of credit.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-270/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common agricultural policy - Fees relating to veterinary inspections and controls - Directive 85/73/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004)

2009/C 113/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, and by U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1 and Article 5(3) and (4) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997 (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 31), and of Article 27(2), (4) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 776/2006 of 23 May 2006 (OJ 2006 L 136, p. 3) — National rules on the health inspection of meat also allowing, over and above the Community fee, the collection of an additional specific fee equivalent to the costs of bacteriological examinations of fresh meat

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 199, 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-530/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Articles 3 and 4)

2009/C 153/16

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. J. Lois, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt in the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Art. 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to provide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the agglomerations of Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde and Santa Cita with collection systems, and by failing to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of that directive, the urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alverca, Bacio do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Nazaré/Famalicão, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real de Santo António, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive.

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
1.

Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof; Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Case C-558/07) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Chemicals - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) - Concept of ‘monomer substances’ - Validity - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

2009/C 205/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc.

Defendants: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division — Interpretation and validity of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC — Concept of ‘monomer substances’

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘monomer substances’ in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC relates only to reacted monomers which are integrated in polymers;

2. Examination of the second question has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.