ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7.

Article 51(1) of the Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute, ‘the ET’) provides: ‘For the purposes of the present law, ‘‘collective redundancy’’ shall mean the termination of employment contracts on economic, technical, organisational or production grounds where, over a period of 90 days, the termination affects at least: (a) 10 workers in undertakings employing fewer than 100 workers; (b) 10% of the number of workers in an undertaking employing between 100 and 300 workers; (c) 30 workers in undertakings employing more than 300 workers. … For the purpose of calculating the number of contract terminations for the purposes of the first subparagraph of this paragraph, all other terminations of an employment contract during the period of reference which occur on the employer’s initiative for other reasons not related to the individual workers concerned which are different from the grounds provided for in Article 49(1)(c) of this Law shall also be taken into account, provided that at least five employees are affected. When, in successive periods of 90 days and in order to circumvent the requirements of this article, an undertaking terminates contracts under Article 52(c) of this Law, the number of terminations being lower than the thresholds indicated, and when there are no new grounds justifying such action, those new terminations shall be deemed to be effected in circumvention of the law and shall be declared null and void.’
Order of the Court of 11 May 1971. - Application for authorization to serve an attachment order on the Commission of the European Communities. - Case S.A. 1-71.



European Court reports 1971 Page 00363



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE S . A . 1/71

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SERVE AN ATTACHMENT ORDER ON THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Grounds

1 BY APPLICATION OF 21 APRIL 1971 X, A LIMITED COMPANY, REQUESTS THE COURT FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SERVE AN ATTACHMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF SUMS OWED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO MRS Z, AN OFFICIAL IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION, AS SECURITY FOR A PRINCIPAL SUM OF ... AND ... COSTS AND INTEREST, WHICH THE SAID MRS Z WAS REQUIRED TO PAY BY AN ORDER OF THE ... MAGISTRATE .

2 IT MUST FIRST BE EXAMINED WHETHER SUCH AN AUTHORIZATION IS NECESSARY .

3 UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, THE PROPERTY AND ASSETS OF THE COMMUNITIES SHALL NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT .

4 THE AIM OF THIS PROVISION IS TO PREVENT OBSTACLES BEING PLACED IN THE WAY OF THE FUNCTIONING AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMUNITIES .

5 AN ATTACHMENT ORDER CAN ONLY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE SUCH AN OBSTACLE .

6 THE AUTHORIZATION TO SERVE AN ATTACHMENT ORDER CAN ARISE ONLY THROUGH THE EXISTENCE OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOR THE REST ARE ENTIRELY DECIDED BY THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES .

7 THE LEGAL PROTECTION WHICH THIS AUTHORIZATION IS INTENDED TO GIVE WOULD EXCEED ITS AIM IF A THIRD PARTY, BEING AN INSTITUTION, WHICH HAS AN ATTACHMENT ORDER SERVED UPON IT CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS NO GROUNDS FOR OPPOSING A REQUIREMENT TO PAY INTO THE HANDS OF A CREDITOR OF ONE OF ITS OFFICIALS ALL OR PART OF THE SUMS WHICH IT OWES OR WILL OWE TO THE LATTER .

8 ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE INSTITUTION WERE OPPOSED TO BEING SERVED WITH AN ATTACHMENT ORDER OR WERE TO TAKE THE VIEW SUBSEQUENTLY THAT IT SHOULD OPPOSE THE PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN THE ORDER OR THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER, IT WOULD FALL TO THE COURT TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON APPLICATION BY THE PARTIES .

9 THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION IS POINTLESS .

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : R . LECOURT, PRESIDENT, A . M . DONNER AND A . TRABUCCHI, PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS, R . MONACO, J . MERTENS DE WILMARS ( RAPPORTEUR ), P . PESCATORE AND H . KUTSCHER, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : K . ROEMER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY RULES :

THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE AN ORDER .
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 – Ramon v Commission

(Case C‑675/19 SA) ( 1 )

(Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Commission)

Privileges and immunities of the European Union – Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on an institution of the European Union – Need for the Court’s authorisation – Scope of the Court’s jurisdiction – Assessment of the existence of the European Union’s debt – Jurisdiction of the national court – No acknowledgment by the institution of the existence of that debt – Debt under the pre-accession funds concerning the defence and promotion of human rights – None – Rejection of the application for leave to serve an order

(Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Art. 1; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 231/2014, Recitals 2 and 7 and Art. 7)

(see paras 24-32)

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Mr Ntinos Ramon shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - THIRD-PARTY PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY - PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE THIRD PARTY

( STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC, ART . 39; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 97 ( 1 )*)

2 . OFFICIALS - STAFF REGULATIONS - INTERPRETATION - GROUNDS OF A JUDGMENT ANNULLING A PROMOTION - EFFECT OF RES JUDICATA ONLY AS REGARDS THE PARTIES .
17.

Article 11 of the regulation is worded as follows: ‘1. Where a person, institution or other body having rights of custody applies to the competent authorities in a Member State to deliver a judgment on the basis of [the 1980 Hague Convention], in order to obtain the return of a child that has been wrongfully removed or retained in a Member State other than the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, paragraphs 2 to 8 shall apply. 2. When applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, it shall be ensured that the child is given the opportunity to be heard during the proceedings unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his or her age or degree of maturity. 3. A court to which an application for return of a child is made as mentioned in paragraph 1 shall act expeditiously in proceedings on the application, using the most expeditious procedures available in national law. Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, the court shall, except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, issue its judgment no later than six weeks after the application is lodged. 4. A court cannot refuse to return a child on the basis of Article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his or her return. 5. A court cannot refuse to return a child unless the person who requested the return of the child has been given an opportunity to be heard. 6. If a court has issued an order on non-return pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, the court must immediately[,] either directly or through its central authority, transmit a copy of the court order on non-return and of the relevant documents, in particular a transcript of the hearings before the court, to the court with jurisdiction or central authority in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, as determined by national law. The court shall receive all the mentioned documents within one month of the date of the non-return order. 7. Unless the courts in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention have already been seised by one of the parties, the court or central authority that receives the information mentioned in paragraph 6 must notify it to the parties and invite them to make submissions to the court, in accordance with national law, within three months of the date of notification so that the court can examine the question of custody of the child. Without prejudice to the rules on jurisdiction contained in this Regulation, the court shall close the case if no submissions have been received by the court within the time limit. 8. Notwithstanding a judgment of non-return pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, any subsequent judgment which requires the return of the child issued by a court having jurisdiction under this Regulation shall be enforceable in accordance with Section 4 of Chapter III below in order to secure the return of the child.’
3b.

Does it make any difference in this context whether that information becomes known in the aforementioned period of three years or only after those three years have elapsed, bearing in mind that, after that information has become known, the competent national authorities possibly need to undertake (further) investigations before reaching their decision? If so, in what way?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/34

Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-520/07 P)

(2008/C 22/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, B. Martenczuk)

Other party to the proceedings: MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities,

— give a final decision in the case and dismiss the application as unfounded;

— order the applicant in the main proceedings to pay the costs of these appeal proceedings as well as the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-196/02.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court of First Instance erred in assuming that it was not possible to make a decision on the basis of the available information for the purpose of establishing the actual beneficiary of the aid. Establishing the actual beneficiary is normally an integral part of Commission decisions ordering recovery of unlawful aid. Making this determination is indeed necessary to ensure efficient recovery of unlawful aid. Excluding the possibility of establishing the actual beneficiary of aid on the basis of the available information is thus not compatible with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

Secondly, the Court was wrong to assume that the Commission decision was based on a mere presumption which did not meet the requirements of a decision on the basis of the available information. On the one hand, where a decision is made on the basis of the information available no absolute certainty is required. On the other, the Commission decision was based on the information sent by SKL-M's insolvency administrator as to the development costs of the know-how. The Commission thus had sufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that the transfer of the know-how to MTU represented an advantage for that undertaking.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2007 — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH

(Case C-495/07)

(2008/C 22/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silberquelle GmbH

Defendant: Maselli-Strickmode GmbH

Question referred

Are Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Trade Mark Directive) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is being put to genuine use if it is used for goods (here: alcohol-free drinks) which the proprietor of the trade mark gives, free of charge, to purchasers of his other goods (here: textiles) after conclusion of the purchase contract?

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. l.
1.

Since the period for transposition of Council Directive of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (89/105/EEC) (1) expired on 31 December 1989, must Article 4(1) of that directive be considered to be directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of the Member States?
—

declare that, by reason of the failure to adapt by 1 January 2006 its system of taxation of electricity to the requirements of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(g)

the clear sense of the arguments and the evidence was distorted, and the reasoning is illogical and inconsistent with the Community case-law on compensation for non-material damage. For the purposes of rejecting the claim for damages in relation to breach of the principle that the administrative procedure must be of reasonable duration or of the Commission's duty of vigilance, the Court of First Instance was not entitled to use the arguments exclusively concerning exclusion from the public procurement procedures or failure to award a public supply contract.
3.

Nevertheless, on the other hand, the Court of First Instance concluded that in precisely that case the Commission was not obliged to carry out such an examination, by reference to the fact that there is a general requirement of confidentiality for documents lodged in pending cases until the oral procedure has taken place in the case. That general requirement for confidentiality is based in part on the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, in part on the fact that the Commission is to be able to uphold its interests as a party to the case. In that regard, the Court of First Instance found that the Commission did not make an incorrect assessment when it refused access to the documents lodged.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 24 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles and Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias

(Case C-570/07)

(2008/C 79/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez

Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles and Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias

Question referred

Should Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Decree 72/2001 dated 19 July of the Principality of Asturias regulating pharmacies and pharmaceutical dispensaries, and Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Annex thereto, be considered to be in breach of Article 43 of the EC Treaty?
1.

In the judgment delivered by it on 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece relating to restrictions concerning the opening and operation of opticians' shops in breach of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC, the Court of Justice of the European Communities: ‘1. [declared] that by enacting and maintaining in force Law No 971/79 on the exercise of the profession of optician and on shops for the sale of optical articles, which does not permit a qualified optician as a natural person to operate more than one optician's shop, the Hellenic Republic [had] failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC; 2. [declared] that by enacting and maintaining in force Law No 971/79 and Law No 2646/98 on the development of a national social security system and other provisions, under which the establishment by a legal person of an optician's shop in Greece is subject to the following conditions: — authorisation for the establishment and operation of the optician's shop must have been granted to a recognised optician who is a natural person, the person holding the authorisation to operate the shop must hold at least 50 % of the company's share capital and must participate at least to that extent in the profits and losses of the company, and the company must be in the form of a collective or limited partnership, and — the optician in question may participate at most in one other company owning an optician's shop, subject to the condition that the authorisation for the establishment and operation of that shop is in the name of another authorised optician, the Hellenic Republic [had] failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 48 EC; 3. [ordered] the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 21 January 2008 — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

(Case C-18/08)

(2008/C 79/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL

Defendant: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

Question referred

Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) provides for the possibility for a Member State to exempt certain categories of vehicle. In this context, is the authorisation given to France by the Commission on 20 June 2005 (2), in Decision 2005/449/EC, to exempt certain categories of vehicles directly applicable to individuals or, as it concerns an authorisation decision addressed to France, is a measure transposing it into national law necessary?

(1) OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42.

(2) 2005/449/EC: Commission Decision of 20 June 2005 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 2005 L 158, p. 23).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/28

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2008 — Athesia Druck Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-1/08)

(2008/C 64/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Athesia Druck Srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Where — for VAT purposes, and in accordance with Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment — is the place of supply in the case of an advertising service which is supplied by an entity established in the territory of a Member State of the European Community to a customer which is established outside the Community but has a tax representative in the territory of a Member State? And, in particular, is it (i) the location of the recipient of the advertising message, or (ii) the place of establishment of the company which is the non-Community company's tax representative for Italy, or (iii) the place of establishment of the non-Community company purchasing the advertising service, or (iv) the place of establishment of the non-Community company's client?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
—

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2008 — BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH v Saarland

(Case C-27/08)

(2008/C 92/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Defendant: Saarland

Question referred

Is the definition of medicinal product in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) in the version in Directive 2004/27/EC (2) to be interpreted to the effect that a product intended for human consumption and described as a food supplement is a functional medicinal product if it contains substances which pose a risk to health in the low dose contained in the product when the recommended intake printed on the packaging is observed, without being capable of producing therapeutic effects, but have therapeutic effects in high doses?

(1) OJ L 311, p. 67.

(2) OJ L 136, p. 34.
—

Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/03 (Government Gazette 304/Α) which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (1) [of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications], and by not withdrawing diplomas issued although the conditions set out in that directive were not satisfied, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (1), or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, or, in any case, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;
—

The Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (1) by failing to adopt the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the Directive or by failing to inform the Commission of their adoption.