ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica Móviles España, SA v Administración del Estado, Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones

(Case C-85/10) (1)

(Telecommunication services - Directive 97/13/EC - General authorisations and individual licences - Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding individual licences - Article 11(2) - Interpretation - National legislation which does not allocate any special use to a fee - Increase in the fee for digital systems, but no change in the fee for first generation analogue systems - Compatibility)

2011/C 139/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telefónica Móviles España, SA

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding individual licences — Imposition of pecuniary charges above and beyond those authorised by the directive and for a purpose not provided for therein — More advanced technologies penalised as compared with obsolete technologies

Operative part of the judgment

The requirements laid down in Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications — under which a charge imposed on operators of telecommunications services for the use of scarce resources must seek to ensure optimal use of those resources and must take into account the need to foster the development of innovative services and competition — must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for a fee to be levied on operators of telecommunications services holding individual licences for the use of radio frequencies, but does not allocate a specific use to the income derived from that fee, and which significantly increases the fee for a particular technology but leaves it unchanged for another.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications, British Telecommunications plc

(Case C-16/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Telecommunications - Networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Designation of undertakings to provide universal service - Specific obligations imposed on the designated undertaking - Directory enquiry services and directories)

2011/C 103/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd

Defendants: Office of Communications, British Telecommunications plc

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21), Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Designation of undertakings to provide universal service — Specific obligations which may be imposed on the designated undertaking

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) permits Member States, where they decide to designate one or more undertakings under that provision to guarantee the provision of universal service, or different elements of universal service, as identified in Articles 4 to 7 and 9(2) of that same directive, to impose on such undertakings only the specific obligations, provided for in the directive, which are associated with the provision of that service, or elements thereof, to end-users by the designated undertakings themselves.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
3.

National provisions, such as those in the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the pet passport and relating to its use as proof of identification and registration of dogs, and to the use of self-adhesive stickers to amend the identity details of the owner and the animal, on the one hand, and to those relating to the determination of a unique number for cats and ferrets, on the other, do not constitute technical standards within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, which, in accordance with Article 8 thereof, must be communicated in advance to the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat

(Case C-271/10) (1)

(Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright and related rights - Public lending - Remuneration of authors - Adequate income)

2011/C 252/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA)

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) (now Article 6(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/115/EC of 12 December 2006) — Remuneration of authors in the case of public lending — Sufficient remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a system under which the remuneration payable to authors in the event of public lending is calculated exclusively according to the number of borrowers registered with public establishments, on the basis of a flat-rate amount fixed per borrower and per year.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Eleftheri tileorasi AE ‘ALTER CHANNEL’, Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis, Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

(Case C-52/10) (1)

(Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting activities - Article 1(d) - ‘Surreptitious advertising’ - Intentional nature - Presentation of cosmetic dental treatment during a television broadcast)

2011/C 226/08

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eleftheri tileorasi AE ‘ALTER CHANNEL’, Konstantinos Giannikos

Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis, Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Article 1(c) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — Television programme consisting in the presentation of cosmetic dental treatment — Concept of ‘surreptitious advertising’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(d) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is not a necessary condition for establishing the element of intent in surreptitious advertising.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
1.

The Republic of Hungary, — by requiring taxable persons whose tax declaration for a given tax period records an ‘excess’ within the meaning of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to carry forward that excess or a part of it to the following tax year where the taxable person has not paid the supplier the full amount for the purchase in question, and — because, as a result of that requirement, certain taxable persons whose tax declarations regularly record such an ‘excess’ may be required more than once to carry forward the excess to the following tax year, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania)) — Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești v Ștefan Agafiței and Others

(Case C-310/10) (1)

(Salary rights of judges - Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work - Conditions for compensation for the harm suffered - Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC - Inapplicability - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

2011/C 269/27

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești

Defendants: Ștefan Agafiței, Raluca Apetroaei, Marcel Bărbieru, Sorin Budeanu, Luminița Chiagă, Mihaela Crăciun, Sorin-Vasile Curpăn, Mihaela Dabija, Mia-Cristina Damian, Sorina Danalache, Oana-Alina Dogaru, Geanina Dorneanu, Adina-Cătălina Galavan, Gabriel Grancea, Mădălina Radu (Hobjilă), Nicolae Cătălin Iacobuț, Roxana Lăcătușu, Sergiu Lupașcu, Smaranda Maftei, Silvia Mărmureanu, Maria Oborocianu, Simona Panfil, Oana-Georgeta Pânzaru, Laurențiu Păduraru, Elena Pîrjol-Năstase, Ioana Pocovnicu, Alina Pușcașu, Cezar Ștefănescu, Roxana Ștefănescu, Ciprian Țimiraș, Cristina Vintilă

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) — Interpretation of Article 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for a difference in treatment as regards the salary rights of judges and public prosecutors, justified in terms of the specialised nature of the work of the public prosecutors attached to the D.N.A. (National Anti-Corruption Directorate) and the D.I.I.C.O.T. (Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism) — Possible discrimination, in the absence of objective criteria linked to a specific requirement of higher qualifications — Provisions of national law transposing a directive declared unconstitutional in so far as they enable the national courts to annul legislative acts regarded as discriminatory and, by way of judicial remedy, to grant salary rights for which no provision has been made by statute

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
1.

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age proclaimed in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, more particularly Articles 2 and 6(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding a measure laid down by a collective agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides that, within each salary group, the basic pay step of a public sector contractual employee is determined on appointment by reference to the employee’s age. The fact that European Union law precludes that measure and that it appears in a collective agreement does not interfere with the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements recognised in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Leo Apelt

(Case C-224/10) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of the national driving licence issued by the Member State of residence and issue of a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D by another Member State - Refusal of recognition by the Member State of residence - Obligation to hold a valid licence for vehicles in category B at the time of issue of the licence for vehicles in category D)

2011/C 355/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Baden-Baden

Party to the national criminal proceedings

Leo Apelt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Baden-Baden — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5(1)(a) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) and of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Driving licence for category B issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State before a decision to withdraw the national licence but after the facts which justified that withdrawal — Extension of that licence, by the Member State of issue, to category D after expiry of the period during which no new national licence could be applied for — Possibility for the Member State of residence to refuse to recognise the validity of that licence, basing that refusal on the lack of a valid licence for category B at the time when the licence for category D was issued

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2), 5(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a host Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D issued by another Member State, first, if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category B in disregard of the normal residence condition and after his driving licence issued by the first Member State had been confiscated by the police authorities in that first Member State but before the right to drive was withdrawn by court order in that first Member State, and, second, if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category D after that withdrawal by court order and after the expiry of the ban on the issue of a new driving licence.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
1.

By failing to apply to all insurance undertakings, on a non-discriminatory basis, the European Union insurance legislation in its entirety and particularly Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 of the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 and Articles 22 and 23 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/68, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
1.

Declares that, by having awarded, by means of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, public contracts for additional land registry and town planning services which do not appear in the initial contract concluded by the municipalities of Vasilika, Kassandra, Egnatia and Arethousa, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1997, and Articles 20 and 31(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;
1.

Articles 77(2)(b)(i) and 78(2)(b)(i) 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that recipients of old age and/or invalidity pensions, or the orphan of a deceased worker, to whom the legislation of several Member States applied, but whose pension or orphan’s rights are based on the legislation of the former Member State of employment alone, are entitled to claim from the competent authorities of that State the full amount of the family allowances provided under that legislation for handicapped children, even though they have not, in the Member State of residence, applied for comparable, higher, allowances under the legislation of that latter State, because they opted to be granted another benefit for handicapped persons which is incompatible with those, since the right to family allowances in the former Member State of employment was acquired by reason of the legislation of that State alone.
2.

Even if a measure imposing a prohibition on leaving the territory such as that applying to Mr Aladzhov in the main proceedings has been adopted under the conditions laid down in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the conditions laid down in Article 27(2) thereof preclude such a measure, — if it is founded solely on the existence of the tax liability of the company of which he is one of the joint managers, and on the basis of that status alone, without any specific assessment of the personal conduct of the person concerned and with no reference to any threat of any kind which he represents to public policy, and — if the prohibition on leaving the territory is not appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and goes beyond what is necessary to attain it. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the position in the case before it.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank, Haarlem — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10) X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10)

(Joined Cases C-319/10 and C-320/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined nomenclature - Tariff classification - Boneless, frozen and salted chicken meat - Validity and interpretation of Regulations (EC) Nos 535/94, 1832/2002, 1871/2003, 2344/2003 and 1810/2004 - Additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects)

(2012/C 25/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank, Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X (C-319/10), X BV (C-320/10)

Defendants: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38) — Boneless, frozen, salted chicken cuts — Tariff classification

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the declarations for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ were made before 27 September 2005, it is not possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), adopting a report by the WTO appellate body (WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R) and two reports by a special WTO group (WT/DS269/R and WT/DS286/R), as amended by the appellate body, neither in the context of interpretation of the additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, nor in the context of assessment of the validity of that additional note.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.