ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Jörn Petersen v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich

(Case C-228/07) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(1)(b) and (g), Article 10(1) and Article 69 - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 39 EC and 42 EC - Statutory pension and accident insurance scheme - Benefit for reduced capacity to work or incapacity to work - Advance payment to unemployed persons who apply for the grant of a benefit - Whether the benefit is an ‘unemployment benefit’ or an ‘invalidity benefit’ - Residence qualification)

(2008/C 285/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jörn Petersen

Defendant: Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 39 EC and of Article 4(1)(b) and (g) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Whether a monetary payment from unemployment insurance, not subject to the condition that the applicant be capable of working or ready for work, and payable as an advance, pending a final decision, only to unemployed persons having previously applied for a benefit under the statutory pension and accident insurance scheme on the ground of reduced capacity for work or incapacity for work, to be classified as an unemployment benefit or as an invalidity benefit — National legislation suspending that benefit if the unemployed person concerned lives in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. A benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) 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;

2. Inasmuch as no factor has been put forward which shows that such a condition is objectively justified and proportionate, Article 39 EC must be interpreted as preventing a Member State from making the grant of a benefit such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which must be regarded as an ‘unemployment benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation No 1408/71, subject to the condition that the recipients be resident in the national territory of that State.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-226/07) (1)

(Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Exemption for energy products used to produce electricity - Option to impose taxation for reasons of environmental policy - Direct effect of the exemption)

(2008/C 223/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Direct effect — National legislation not exempting gas oil used to produce electricity from mineral oil tax

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under that directive of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect in the sense that it may be relied upon by an individual before national courts — in relation to a period of time during which the Member State concerned was in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law within the prescribed period — in a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, between that individual and the customs authorities of that State, for the purpose of having national legislation which is incompatible with that provision disapplied and, consequently, obtaining a refund of tax which infringed that provision.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 October 2008 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07)

(Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Parliament - Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks - Claim for non-pecuniary damages - Immunity of Members of the European Parliament)

(2008/C 313/09)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Alfonso Luigi Marra

Respondents: Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) and Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) — Claim for non-pecuniary damages in relation to insulting remarks made by a Member of the European Parliament — Competence of the civil court to rule as to the existence or otherwise of privilege in the absence of a decision of the European Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

The Community rules relating to the immunity of Members of the European Parliament must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for damages brought against a Member of the European Parliament in respect of opinions he has expressed,

— where the national court which has to rule on such an action has received no information regarding a request by that Member to the European Parliament seeking defence of the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, it is not obliged to request the European Parliament to give a decision on whether the conditions for that immunity are met;

— where the national court is informed of the fact that that Member has made a request to the European Parliament for defence of that immunity, within the meaning of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, it must stay the judicial proceedings and request the European Parliament to issue its opinion as soon as possible;

— where the national court considers that that Member enjoys the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, it is obliged to dismiss the action brought against the Member concerned.

(1) OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Marguerite Chetcuti v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-16/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Competition internal to the institution - Rejection of candidature - Conditions of admission)

(2008/C 301/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marguerite Chetcuti (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04 Chetcuti v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's action for annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 22 June 2004 rejecting her candidature and for annulment of the subsequent acts of the competition procedure — Infringement of Articles 4, 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations in the version in force until 30 April 2004 — Concept of ‘internal competition’ and the objective assigned to recruitment of ensuring that the institution secures the services of persons of the ‘highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity’ — Eligibility of auxiliary staff

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Chetcuti to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Theologos-Grigorios Khatzithanasis v Ipourgos Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, OEEK (Organismos Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis)

(Case C-151/07) (1)

(Directive 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas - Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment in the host Member State - Optician)

(2009/C 19/03)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Theologos-Grigorios Khatzithanasis

Defendants: Ipourgos Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, OEEK (Organismos Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Articles 149 and 150 EC and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Failure to recognise, in the host Member State, a vocational training qualification conferring a right to pursue the profession of optician in the Member State where that qualification was awarded — Training received, for the greater part, at an establishment which lawfully operates in the host Member State, but which is not recognised, under the legislation of that State, as an educational establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(a), 3 and 4 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under Article 3 of that directive, subject to the application of Article 4 of that directive, to recognise a diploma awarded by a competent authority in another Member State even though that diploma attests to education and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
1.

declares that by maintaining provisions under which the age at which officials have the right to receive the old-age pension varies according to whether they are men or women, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;
1.

declares that, by extending, by Article 2(44) of 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 n. 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004), to 2002 the tax amnesty provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003), and consequently providing generally and indiscriminately that assessment of taxable transactions effected in the 2002 tax period is to be discontinued, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a), (c) and (d) and Articles 193 to 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, which as from 1 January 2007 replaced Articles 2 and 22 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, and under Article 10 EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — France) — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique

(Case C-418/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Group taxation regime - Resident parent company - Resident sub-subsidiaries held through a non-resident subsidiary)

(2009/C 19/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Papillon

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

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 48 EC — Restriction on freedom of establishment and possible justification for a tax scheme making a distinction depending on whether the French sub-subsidiary of a parent company (also established in France) is held through a subsidiary established in that Member State or established in another Member State and not subject to French corporation tax — Justification based on the coherence of the tax system

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which a group tax regime is made available to a parent company which is resident in that Member State and holds subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries which are also resident in that State, but is unavailable to such a parent company if its resident sub-subsidiaries are held through a subsidiary which is resident in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-121/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release into the environment and placing on the market of GMOs - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Article 228 EC - Judgment complied with during the proceedings - Pecuniary penalties)

(2009/C 44/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, S. Gasri and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: initially, T. Boček and, subsequently, M. Smolek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 concerning the failure to transpose the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1), which diverge from or go beyond the provisions of that directive — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the deadline imposed in the reasoned opinion expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 Commission v France concerning its failure to transpose into national law the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, which diverge from or go beyond the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 10 million;

3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV)/Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) v Commission of the European Communities, French Republic

(Joined Cases C-101/07 P and C-110/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Market in beef and veal - Agreement between national federations of farmers and slaughterers with the object of suspending imports of beef and veal and fixing a minimum purchase price - Fines - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Taking into account of the turnover of undertakings which are members of the federations)

(2009/C 44/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) (represented by M. Ponsard, avocat) (C-101/07 P), Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) (represented by V. Ledoux and B. Neouze, avocats) (C-110/07 P),

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 FNCBV and Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants' application primarily, to annul Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) or, alternatively, to cancel or reduce the fine imposed by that decision — Constituent elements of a cartel — Need for acquiescence of the parties — Method of calculating the fines — Entitlement to take into account the turnover of the members of an association where it does not have formal power to bind its members — Duty to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Coop de France bétail et viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV), Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL) and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH v Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH

(Case C-240/07) (1)

(Rights related to copyright - Rights of phonogram producers - Reproduction right - Distribution right - Term of protection - Directive 2006/116/EC - Rights of nationals of non-Member States)

(2009/C 69/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH

Defendant: Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12) — Application of the term of protection to subject-matter that has not at any time been protected in the Member State in which protection is sought and whose rightholder is not a Community national.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The term of protection laid down by Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights is also applicable, pursuant to Article 10(2) thereof, where the subject-matter at issue has at no time been protected in the Member State in which the protection is sought.

2. Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116 is to be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection provided for by that directive apply in a situation where the work or subject-matter at issue was, on 1 July 1995, protected as such in at least one Member State under that Member State's national legislation on copyright and related rights and where the holder of such rights in respect of that work or subject-matter, who is a national of a non-Member State, benefited, at that date, from the protection provided for by those national provisions.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.