ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — The Queen, M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury

(Case C-340/08) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Article 2(2) - Prohibition of making funds available to the persons listed in Annex I to that regulation - Scope - Social security and social assistance benefits paid to the spouse of a person included in Annex I)

(2010/C 161/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, M and Others

Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9) — Scope of the prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I — Social security or social assistance benefits provided by the State to such a person's spouse

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 561/2003 of 27 March 2003, must be construed as not applying to the provision by the State of social security or social assistance benefits to the spouse of a person designated by the committee created pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council of the United Nations and included in the list in Annex I to that regulation, as amended, on the grounds only that the spouse lives with that person and will or may use some of those payments to pay for goods and services which the designated person also will consume or from which he also will benefit.

(1) OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
1.

Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of services by avocats, avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation and avoués, for which they are paid in full or in part by the State under the legal aid scheme, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading as Betfair v Minister van Justitie

(Case C-203/08) (1)

(Article 49 EC - Restrictions on the freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Offer of games of chance via the internet - Legislation reserving a licence to a single operator - Renewal of licence without subjecting the matter to competition - Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency - Application in the field of games of chance)

2010/C 209/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading as Betfair

Defendant: Minister van Justitie

Intervening party: Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National legislation prohibiting the unlicensed organisation of gaming and collection of bets and reserving a licence to one single operator in order to safeguard social wellbeing and public health — Refusal to issue a licence to an (internet) operator which is already licensed in other Member States, including the Member State in which it has its registered office — Renewal of such a licence without subjecting the matter to competition — Overriding reasons in the public interest

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which exclusive rights to organise and promote games of chance are conferred on a single operator, and which prohibits any other operator, including an operator established in another Member State, from offering via the internet services within the scope of that regime in the territory of the first Member State.

2. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency are applicable to procedures for the grant of a licence to a single operator or for the renewal thereof in the field of games of chance, in so far as the operator in question is not a public operator whose management is subject to direct State supervision or a private operator whose activities are subject to strict control by the public authorities.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Deutsche Post AG, Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV, UPS Europe SA, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-399/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 87 EC - Aid granted by the Member States - Measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG - Article 86 EC - Services of general economic interest - Compensation for additional costs generated by a policy of selling below cost in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector - Existence of an economic advantage - Method used by the Commission to check - Burden of proof - Article 230 EC - Scope of the General Court’s powers of judicial review)

(2010/C 288/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, J. Flett and B. Martenczuk, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt), Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (represented by: R. Wojtek, Rechtsanwalt), UPS Europe SA (represented by: E. Henny, advocaat), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 July 2008 in Case T-266/02 Deutsche Post v Commission annulling Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2002 L 247, p. 27) declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Compensation of additional costs generated by a below-cost selling policy in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector — Infringement of Articles 86(2) EC and 87(1) EC, Article 230 EC and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Annulment without finding any specific error in the Commission’s reasoning supporting the contested decision — Failure to state reasons as regards the alleged unlawfulness of the method used by the Commission to ascertain the existence of unlawful aid

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeals;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG in connection with the main appeal;

3. Orders Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV and UPS Europe SA to bear their own costs relating to the main appeal;

4. Orders Deutsche Post AG, Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV and UPS Europe SA to bear their own costs relating to the cross-appeals;

5. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-442/08) (1)

(Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - EEC-Hungary Association Agreement - Subsequent verification - Failure to comply with rules on origin - Decision of the authorities of the exporting State - Appeal - Commission inspection mission - Customs duties - Post-clearance recovery - Own resources - Making available - Default interest)

2010/C 234/11

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1), and the corresponding provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Late payment of the Communities’ own resources in the event of subsequent collection of import tariffs and refusal to pay default interest — Obligation of the importing Member State not to delay implementation of the procedure for the subsequent collection of import tariffs for goods whose certificate of origin was revoked by the authorities of the exporting State — Obligation of the importing Member State to pay default interest due in the event of late entry of the own resources payable in respect of tariff claims time-barred as a result of the inactivity of those authorities during the legal proceedings brought in the exporting State for the annulment of the decisions revoking the certificates of origin

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing customs claims to become time-barred, despite the receipt of a mutual assistance communication, paying the own resources owed in this connection late and refusing to pay the default interest payable, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG v ‘Österreich’ -Zeitungsverlag GmbH

(Case C-540/08) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation laying down a prohibition in principle on commercial practices making the offer of bonuses to consumers subject to the purchase of goods or services)

2011/C 13/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant:‘Österreich’ -Zeitungsverlag GmbH

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 5(2) and (5) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National legislation prohibiting publishers of periodicals from announcing, offering or giving bonuses to consumers free of charge with periodicals and from offering such bonuses with goods sold or services supplied, without taking into account whether the commercial practice in question is misleading or aggressive — Legislation with the objective not only of protecting consumers but also of maintaining the diversity of the press and protecting weaker competitors — Concept of unfair commercial practice

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general prohibition on sales with bonuses and is not only designed to protect consumers but also pursues other objectives;

2. The possibility of participating in a prize competition, linked to the purchase of a newspaper, does not constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29, simply on the ground that, for at least some of the consumers concerned, that possibility of participating in a competition represents the factor which determines them to buy that newspaper.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.03.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Vodafone D2 GmbH, formerly Vodafone AG & Co. KG, formerly Arcor AG & Co. KG and Others

(Case C-280/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 82 EC - Markets for telecommunications services - Access to the fixed network of the incumbent operator - Wholesale charges for local loop access services to competitors - Retail charges for access services to end-users - Pricing practices of a dominant undertaking - Margin squeeze - Charges approved by the national regulatory authority - Leeway of the dominant undertaking - Attributability of the infringement - Meaning of ‘abuse’ - As-efficient-competitor test - Calculation of the margin squeeze - Effects of the abuse - Amount of the fine)

2010/C 346/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG (represented by: U. Quack, S. Ohlhoff and M. Hutschneider, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz, W. Mölls and O. Weber, Agents), Vodafone D2 GmbH, formerly Vodafone AG & Co. KG, formerly Arcor AG & Co. KG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt), Versatel NRW GmbH, formerly Tropolys NRW GmbH, formerly CityKom Münster GmbH Telekommunikationsservice, EWE TEL GmbH, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel Nord GmbH, formerly Versatel Nord-Deutschland GmbH, formerly KomTel Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Informationsdienste mbH, NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH, Versatel Süd GmbH, formerly Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH, formerly tesion Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel West GmbH, formerly Versatel West-Deutschland GmbH, formerly Versatel Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: N. Nolte, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 April 2008 in Case T-271/03 Deutsche Telekom v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 — Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p. 9), and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Abuse of a dominant position — Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany — Abusive nature of pricing practices of a dominant undertaking charging its competitors tariffs for wholesale access to the local loop that are higher than the prices it charges for retail access to the local network

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-61/08) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 89/48/EEC)

2011/C 204/08

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Christianos, E.-M. Mamouna and A. Samoni-Rantou, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Articles 43 and 45 EC and Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — National rules making pursuit of the profession of notary subject to a nationality requirement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic, the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-6/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 282/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted or communicated, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.03.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Graphic Procédé v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

(Case C-88/09) (1)

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Reprographics activities - Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ - Distinguishing criteria)

2010/C 80/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Graphic Procédé

Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 6(1) 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) — Reprographics — Criteria to take into account in order to distinguish a supply of services from a provision of services for the purposes of the Sixth Directive

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) 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 reprographics activities have the characteristics of a supply of goods to the extent that they are limited to mere reproduction of documents on materials, where the right to dispose of them has been transferred from the reprographer to the customer who ordered the copies of the original. Such activities must be classified however as a ‘supply of services’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, where it is clear that they involve additional services liable, having regard to the importance of those services for the recipient, the time necessary to perform them, the processing required by the original documents and the proportion of the total cost that those services represent, to be predominant in relation to the supply of goods, such that they constitute an aim in themselves for the recipient thereof.

(1) OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
1.

In so far as they require a licence to be obtained by a consumer who has concluded a subscription contract, are Article 21 of the Tariff annexed to Presidential Decree No 641/1972 and Article 160 of Legislative Decree No 259/2003 compatible with the rules laid down in Directive 2002/20/EC (1), which, by contrast, refers to individual licences to be obtained by undertakings providing the services or the networks?
2.

The national court is not required to examine the specific effects of increases of a tax on imports of bananas originating in Somalia, such as the tax introduced by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, by comparison with the situation before 1 April 1976, in order to determine whether such increases are compatible with the standstill clause in Article 1 of Protocol No 5 on bananas annexed to the Fourth Lomé Convention. However, increases of such a tax which simply adjust it to take account of inflation are not incompatible with that clause.