ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-133/06) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common policy on asylum - Directive 2005/85/EC - Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Safe countries of origin - European safe third countries - Minimum common lists - Procedure for adopting or amending the minimum common lists - Article 67(1) and first indent of Article 67(5) EC - No power)

(2008/C 158/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens, A. Caiola, A. Auersperger Matić and K. Bradley, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, P. Van Nuffel and J.-F. Pasquier, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm, M. Balta and G. Maganza, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Niollet, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma) — Nuova Agricast Srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive

(Case C-390/06) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme authorised for a specific period - Notification of the amended aid scheme for a new period - Transitional measures between the two schemes - Decision of the Commission not to raise objections - Information available to the Commission - Validity of the Commission's decision - Equal treatment - Statement of reasons)

(2008/C 142/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nuova Agricast Srl

Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Roma — Validity of the Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the Treaty an aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation in the form of aid for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (SG(2000)D/105754)

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question submitted has revealed nothing which might affect the validity of the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections against an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy until 31 December 2006 (State aid No N 715/99 — Italy).

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-39/06) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - State aid - Subsidies for investment and employment - Obligation to recover - Non-compliance - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

(2008/C 209/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 249 EC and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (notified under document number C(2003) 1520; Aid No C-62/00, ex NN 142/99) (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12) — Failure to take, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to recover aid which was declared incompatible with the common market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to recover certain aid declared incompatible with the common market by Article 1(2)(d) and (g) of the Commission Decision of 30 October 2002, as it appears in Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of that decision;

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

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/8

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-503/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Derogations from the system of protection of wild birds - Region of Liguria)

(2008/C 171/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Adoption and application, by the region of Liguria, of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

1. By adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-305/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Combined transport of goods between the Member States - Directive 92/106/EEC - Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation - Nearest suitable railway station)

(2008/C 285/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38) — Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation — Requirement of a Greek road transport authorisation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova — Italy) — Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media

(Case C-500/06) (1)

(Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 4 EC, 10 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC - National legislation prohibiting advertisements for medical or surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature)

(2008/C 223/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporación Dermoestética SA

Defendant: To Me Group Advertising Media

Intervener: Cliniche Futura Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Genova — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC — Compatibility of a national provision prohibiting the broadcasting of advertisements on national television networks for medical and surgical treatments carried out in private health care establishments and limiting expenditure on advertising to 5 % of income for the previous year

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 48 EC and 55 EC, must be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it prohibits the broadcasting of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments on national television networks while at the same time permitting such advertisements, subject to certain conditions, on local television networks.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-166/07) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 - Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland - Choice of legal basis)

2009/C 256/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Klavina, L. Visaggio and A. Troupiotis, Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Moore, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagen, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent and D.W. Anderson QC, Barrister)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010) (OJ 2006 L 409, p. 86 and corrigendum in OJ 2007 L 36, p. 31) — Choice of legal basis — Article 308 EC (Consultation of the Parliament/Unanimity of the Council) — Strengthening of economic and social cohesion — Specific actions necessary in addition to those carried out in the context of the Structural Funds — Consolidation of the peace process in Northern Ireland — Article 159 EC (codecision procedure)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010).

2. Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1968/2006 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on an appropriate legal basis.

3. Orders that the annulment of Regulation No 1968/2006 shall not affect the validity of payments made or of undertakings given under that regulation.

4. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own respective costs.

5. Orders Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Austria) — Gottfried Heinrich

(Case C-345/06) (1)

(Article 254(2) EC - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 2(3) - Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 - Aviation security - Annex - List of articles prohibited on board aircraft - Not published - Binding force)

2009/C 113/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gottfried Heinrich

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Interpretation of Article 254(2) EC and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (OJ 2003 L 89, p. 9) — Annex to the regulation, establishing detailed measures in respect of aviation security, and in particular a list of prohibited articles that cannot be brought on board an aircraft, not published

Operative part of the judgment

The annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2004 of 15 January 2004, which was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union, has no binding force in so far as it seeks to impose obligations on individuals.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/17

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-263/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition - Directive 96/61/EC - Article 9(4) - Article 13(1) - Annex I - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Concepts of ‘application of the best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration of the conditions for an operating permit’)

(2008/C 22/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) and of Annex I thereto — Concepts of application of the ‘best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration’ of the conditions for an operating permit

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and of Annex I thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-417/07) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/36/EC - Safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 116/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
1)

Declares that, by maintaining in force clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31 March 2004 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-271/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/61/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Incomplete and incorrect transposition)

(2008/C 171/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Partial, incorrect or non-existent transposition of Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of the transposition measures and that of the directive — Over-wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to the operating permits and the situations in which the conditions of the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated

Operative part of the judgment

1. By transposing in part or incorrectly Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-286/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States - Requirement of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer - Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous owner(s))

(2008/C 142/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and P. Kinsch, avocat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC –National rule making the registration of second-hand vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State subject to the submission of an excerpt from the entry on the commercial register of the vehicle's seller, whereas vehicles previously registered in Luxembourg are not subject to such a requirement — Obstacle to the free movement of goods — Lack of justification and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for the dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Germany) — Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

(Case C-94/07) (1)

(Article 39 EC - Concept of ‘worker’ - Non-governmental organisation operating in the public interest - Doctoral grant - Employment contract - Conditions)

(2008/C 223/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Raccanelli

Defendant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Capacity as a worker of a doctoral student engaged as a grant recipient by a non-profit-making association established under private law in another Member State which offers most national doctoral students the possibility of concluding a contract of employment — Need to make it possible for doctoral students who are nationals of the other Member States to choose between a grant and a contract of employment — Concept of ‘worker’

Operative part of the judgment

1. A researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is, a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration. It is for the referring court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case in the dispute before it.

2. A private-law association, such as the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must observe the principle of non-discrimination in relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC. It is for the referring court to establish whether, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there has been inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.

3. In the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.