ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-127/07) (1)

(Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Installations in the steel sector included - Installations in the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors excluded - Principle of equal treatment)

(2009/C 44/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Validity, in the light of the Community principle of equal treatment, of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Difference in treatment as between, on the one hand, installations in the steel sector subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme laid down by the Directive and, on the other, the aluminium and plastic industries, which emit identical greenhouse gases and which are not subject to that system — Objective justification for that difference in treatment?

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, from the point of view of the principle of equal treatment has disclosed nothing to affect its validity in so far as it makes the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme applicable to the steel sector without including the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors in its scope.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — STEKO Industriemontage GmbH v Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim

(Case C-377/07) (1)

(Corporation tax - Transitional provisions - Deduction of the depreciation of holdings in non-resident companies)

(2009/C 69/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: STEKO Industriemontage GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — Corporation tax — Transitional provisions for the year 2001 prohibiting a company from deducting the depreciation in value of its foreign shareholdings

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a resident capital company has a holding of less than 10 % in another capital company, Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding a prohibition on the deduction of reductions in profit in connection with such a holding which enters into force earlier with regard to a holding in a non-resident company than with regard to a holding in a resident company.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli Strickmode GmbH

(Case C-495/07) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Articles 10 and 12 - Revocation - Concept of ‘genuine use’ of a mark - Affixing the mark to promotional items - Distribution of such items free of charge to the purchasers of goods sold by the mark's proprietor)

(2009/C 55/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silberquelle GmbH

Defendant: Maselli Strickmode GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Revocation of the rights of the proprietor of the trade mark — Concept of genuine use of the trade mark — Goods (non-alcoholic drink) being given out as free gifts on the occasion of the sale of other goods (textiles)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, where the proprietor of a mark affixes that mark to items that it gives, free of charge, to purchasers of its goods, it does not make genuine use of that mark in respect of the class covering those items.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — French Republic v Council of the European Union

(Case C-479/07) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 - Definition of the concept of drift nets - ‘Thonaille’ - Duty to state reasons - Infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

2009/C 102/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, M.-M. Joséphidès and E. Chaboureau, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik and M.T. van Rijn, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘drift nets’ — Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ — Infringement of the duty to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

3. orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 297,8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-515/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Goods and services forming part of the assets of a business for use in taxable transactions and in transactions other than taxable transactions - Right to an immediate and full deduction of the tax paid in respect of the acquisition of such goods and services)

(2009/C 82/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 6(2) and 17(1), (2) and (6) 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) — Goods and services (not only capital goods used partly for business and partly for private purposes) — Allocation in full to the taxpayer's business assets — Possibility of deducting immediately and in full the tax on the purchase of such goods and services.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6(2)(a) and 17(2) 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 not being applicable to the use of goods and services allocated to the business for the purpose of transactions other than the taxable transactions of the taxable person, as the value added tax due in respect of the acquisition of those goods and services, and relating to such transactions, is not deductible.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-425/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Commission rejecting a complaint - Serious impediments to the proper functioning of the common market - Lack of Community interest)

2009/C 141/17

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (represented by: T. Asprogerakas Grivas, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-229/05 AEPI v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 April 2005 to reject the applicant’s complaint concerning an alleged infringement of Articles 81 and/or 82 of the EC Treaty by the related-rights collective management bodies ERATO, APOLLON and GRAMMO which charged radio and television stations unreasonable amounts in respect of the related rights of singers, musicians and producers of music media

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
1.

Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (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), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-516/07) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for Community action in the field of water policy - Designation of competent authorities for hydrographic districts)

2009/C 153/15

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Article 3(2), (7) and (8) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to designate the competent authorities for the application of the rules of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) and (7) of that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
1.

Article 21(1)(c) of the 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, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 must be interpreted as meaning that turnover tax is due, in accordance with that provision, to the Member State to which the VAT mentioned on an invoice or other document serving as invoice relates, even if the transaction in question was not taxable in that Member State. It is for the national court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, to which Member State the VAT mentioned on the invoice in question is due. In particular, the rate mentioned, the currency in which the amount to be paid is expressed, the language in which the invoice was drawn up, the content and context of the invoice at issue, the place of establishment of the issuer of that invoice and the beneficiary of the services performed, as well as their behaviour, can be relevant in that regard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd v Licensing Authority (acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

(Case C-527/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Grounds of refusal - Generic medicinal products - Concept of ‘reference medicinal product’)

2009/C 180/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd

Defendant: Licensing Authority, acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

Supported by: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen-Cilag AB

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Marketing authorisation — Abridged procedure — Application for authorisation of a generic of a reference medicinal product — Concept of reference medicinal product when examining the application

Operative part of the judgment

A medicinal product, such as Nivalin at issue in the main proceedings, which falls outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and the placing of which on the market in a Member State was not authorised in accordance with the applicable Community law, cannot be considered to be a reference medicinal product within the meaning of Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Bolloré SA, Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL v Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-322/07 P, C-327/07 P and C-338/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Carbonless paper - Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Consequences - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Participation in the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Reasonable period for duration of proceedings before the Court of First Instance)

2009/C 256/04

Languages of the case: German, French and Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Papierfabrik August Koehler AG (represented by: I. Brinker and S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwälte, J. Schwarze, professeur), Bolloré SA (represented by: C. Momège and P. Gassenbach, avocats), Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL (represented by: E. Pérez Medrano and T. Díaz Utrilla, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt, N. Coutrelis, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02 Bolloré and Others v Commission — Price fixing agreement in the carbonless paper sector — Infringement of rights of defence in respect of the proof that the appellant participated in the infringement committed prior to October 1993 (erroneous, insufficient and contradictory proof) — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in respect of the setting of the amount of the fine (since the appellant is a family business which does not have access to capital markets)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02 Bolloré and Others v Commission in so far as it concerns Bolloré SA.

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) in so far as it relates to Bolloré SA.

3. Dismisses the appeals brought by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL.

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal in Case C-327/07 P.

5. Orders Papierfabrik August Koehler AG to pay the costs in Case C-322/07 P and Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL to pay the costs in Case C-338/07 P.

(1) OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-481/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Commission Decision rejecting a complaint brought against Eurocontrol - Actual and certain damage)

2009/C 220/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciandone and A. Neri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, agents.)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 August 2007 in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission dismissing as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law the action for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of an alleged infringement by Eurocontrol of the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/2

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dinter GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08)

(Joined Cases C-522/07 and C-65/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Validity - Additional note - Apple juice concentrate)

2009/C 312/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dinter GmbH (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH (C-65/08)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation and validity of Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Pure concentrated apple juice, with a Brix value of 66.8, not containing added sugar — Classification of that product under tariff subheading 2009 7999 (apple juice not containing added sugar) or under subheading 2106 9098 (food preparations not elsewhere specified or included) — Limits on the Commission’s powers under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 to specify the content of the tariff headings

Operative part of the judgment

Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1776/2001 of 7 September 2001, (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 and (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, is invalid to the extent that it excludes natural apple juice concentrate from heading 2009.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

OJ C 107, 26.4.2008