ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

(Case C-158/07) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Student who is a national of one Member State and goes to another Member State to follow a training course - Student maintenance grant - Citizenship of the Union - Article 12 EC - Legal certainty)

(2009/C 6/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacqueline Förster

Defendant: Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 18 EC, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), and Article 3 of Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — Student who is a national of one Member State and goes to another Member State to follow a training course, at the same time working as an employed person in the second Member State but who has, meanwhile, ceased that employment.

Operative part of the judgment

1. A student in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State in order to obtain a maintenance grant.

2. A student who is a national of a Member State and travels to another Member State to study there can rely on the first paragraph of Article 12 EC in order to obtain a maintenance grant where he or she has resided for a certain duration in the host Member State. The first paragraph of Article 12 EC does not preclude the application to nationals of other Member States of a requirement of five years' prior residence.

3. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, does not preclude the application of a residence requirement which makes the right of students from other Member States to a maintenance grant subject to the completion of periods of residence which occurred prior to the introduction of that requirement.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Freistaat Sachsen

(Case C-334/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Proposed scheme for aid to small and medium-sized enterprises - Compatibility with the common market - Criteria for assessing State aid - Application ratione temporis - Proposed scheme notified before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 - Decision subsequent to entry into force thereof - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Complete notifications)

(2009/C 32/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Freistaat Sachsen (represented by: Th. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission by which the Court annulled in part Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion) (OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13) — Applicability of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises for aid projects notified to the Commission before the entry into force of that regulation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Reserves costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/18

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M. S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Millar, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, Michaël Zouridakis v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union

(Case C-443/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff Regulations of officials - Plea of illegality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII on the classification of officials recruited after 1 May 2004 - Consulting of the Staff Regulations Committee - No infringement of acquired rights or of the principle of equal treatment)

(2009/C 44/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M. S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Millar, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, Michaël Zouridakis (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 July 2007 in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions of the appellants seeking annulment of the decisions appointing them probationary officials, in so far as they fix their grade classification in accordance with the transitional provisions in Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Implications of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations for the situation of persons on a list of suitable candidates or a reserve list before the date of entry into force of those regulations, namely 1 May 2004, but recruited after that date — Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Scope of the duty to give reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Centeno Mediavilla, Ms Fumey, Ms Gerhards, Ms Hamilton, Mr Hill, Mr Huby, Mr Klein, Mr Lombardi, Mr Millar, Mr Moraitis, Ms Palmer, Ms Robinson, Mr Rouxel, Ms Silva Mendes, Mr van den Hul, Mr Von Nordheim Nielsen and Mr Zouridakis to pay the costs of the appeal;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-47/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the Community - Community assistance programmes - Irregularities on the part of the co-contractor of the Commission - Services provided by a subcontractor - Non-payment - Risks inherent in economic activities - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty of care of the Community administration)

(2009/C 44/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Masdar (UK) Ltd (represented by: A.P. Bentley, QC, and P. Green, barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 in Case T-333/03 Masdar UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, dismissing as unfounded an action for damages in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following refusal by the Commission to pay it for services which it claims to have provided in connection with two projects under the TACIS Programme in Moldavia and Russia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Masdar (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-230/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Single European emergency call number - Caller location - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 69/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 26(3) 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) (OJ L 108, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that by not making, for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) 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);

2. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

3. orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/14

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon — France) — Régie Networks v Direction de Contrôle Fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne

(Case C-333/07) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme to support local radio stations - Financed by a parafiscal charge on advertising companies - Favourable decision by the Commission at the conclusion of the preliminary stage of the review procedure under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Aid that may be compatible with the common market - Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) - Decision challenged on the ground that it is unlawful - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Assessment of the facts - Whether the parafiscal charge is compatible with the EC Treaty)

(2009/C 44/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Régie Networks

Defendant: Direction de Contrôle Fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon — Validity of Commission Decision No N 679/97 of 10 November 1997 by which the Commission decided not to raise any objections to amendments made to the radio broadcasting aid scheme introduced by Decree 92-1053 of 30 September 1992 (JORF No 228 of 1 October 1992) (SG(97) D/9265) — Parafiscal charge on advertisements broadcast on sound radio and television in French territory, the revenue from which is allocated to a fund to support radio broadcasting — Aid scheme which benefits only national undertakings — Applicability to that scheme — and to the charge which funds it — of the exception provided for in Article 87(3)(c) EC

Operative part of the judgment

The decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 November 1997 not to raise any objections to the new version of an aid scheme to support local radio stations (State aid No N 679/97 — France) is invalid.

The effects of the declaration that that decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 November 1997 is invalid are suspended pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission under Article 88 EC. Those effects are to be preserved for a period not exceeding two months from the date of delivery of this judgment if the Commission decides to adopt such a new decision under Article 88(3) EC, and for a reasonable further period if the Commission decides to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC. Only undertakings which, prior to the date of delivery of this judgment, brought legal proceedings or made an equivalent complaint regarding the levying of the parafiscal charge on advertising broadcast by sound radio or television, established by Article 1 of Decree No 97-1263 of 29 December 1997 creating a parafiscal charge for the benefit of a fund to support radio broadcasting, are excluded from the temporal limitation of the effects of this judgment.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v N.V. Cobelfret

(Case C-138/07) (1)

(Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(1) - Direct effect - National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits - Deduction of the amount of dividends received from a parent company's basis of assessment only in so far as it has made taxable profits)

(2009/C 82/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Belgische Staat

Respondent: N.V. Cobelfret

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — National provisions designed to prevent double taxation of distributed dividends — Conditions

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that dividends received by a parent company are to be included in its basis of assessment in order subsequently to be deducted from that basis in the amount of 95 %, in so far as, for the tax period in question, the parent company has a positive profit balance after deduction of other exempted profits.

The first indent of Article 4(1) of Directive 90/435 is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be capable of being relied on before national courts.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
3.

A protective measure, such as the taking into care of children, may be decided by a national court under Article 20 of Regulation No 2201/2003 if the following conditions are satisfied: — the measure must be urgent; — it must be taken in respect of persons in the Member State concerned, and — it must be provisional. The taking of the measure and its binding nature are determined in accordance with national law. After the protective measure has been taken, the national court is not required to transfer the case to the court of another Member State having jurisdiction. However, in so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the national court which has taken provisional or protective measures must inform, directly or through the central authority designated under Article 53 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the court of another Member State having jurisdiction.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-326/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Articles of association of privatised undertakings - Criteria for the exercise of certain special powers held by the State)

2009/C 113/13

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Clause introduced into the statutes of certain privatised undertakings concerning the exercise of various special powers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting the provisions contained in Article 1(2) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 10 June 2004 defining the criteria for the exercise of the special powers referred to in Article 2 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted into law with amendments by Law No 474 of 30 July 1994 (decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, definizione dei criteri di esercizio dei poteri speciali, di cui all’art. 2 del decreto-legge 31 maggio 1994, n. 332, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 30 luglio 1994, n. 474), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations: — under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, in so far as those provisions apply to the special powers provided by Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Decree-Law, as amended by Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2004) (legge No 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004), and — under Article 43 EC, in so far as those provisions apply to the special power provided by Article 2(1)(c) of the Decree-Law;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/7

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-373/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Protection of the ozone layer - Import of methyl bromide into the Union - Refusal to allocate import quotas for 2005 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)

2009/C 141/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05 Mebrom v Commission by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for annulment of Decision A(05)4338-D/6176 of the Commission of 11 April 2005 refusing to allocate to the appellant quotas for the import of methyl bromide into the European Union in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Incorrect application of Community law — Inadequate reasoning — Breach of Article 220 EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mebrom NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Republic of Estonia) — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-241/07) (1)

(EAGGF - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Community support for rural development - Support for agri-environmental production methods)

2009/C 180/04

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JK Otsa Talu OÜ

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Articles 22, 23, 24(1), 37(4) and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) — National legislation reserving agri-environmental support solely to applicants who have already been granted support in the previous year and excluding new applicants who commit themselves to organising their production in accordance with agri-environmental requirements

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 37(4) and 39 thereof, do not preclude a Member State from restricting, on account of insufficient budgetary resources, the class of recipients of rural development support to farmers already concerned by a decision to grant such support in the previous budgetary year.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.07.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur v Koipe Corporación, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-498/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark La Española - Overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Decisive element)

2009/C 256/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur SA (represented by: J.-M. Otero Lastres and R. Jimenez Diaz, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Koipe Corporación SL (represented by: M. Fernández de Béthencourt, abogado), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-363/04 Koipe v OHIM and Aceites del Sur (La Española), by which the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 May 2004 (Case R 1109/2000-4) was altered so as to hold that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be upheld.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of Koipe Corporación SL;

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.