ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

(Case C-48/07) (1)

(Corporation taxes - Directive 90/435/EEC - Status of parent company - Capital holding - Holding of shares in usufruct)

(2009/C 44/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge — SPF Finances

Defendant: Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiary companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Meaning of holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member State — Whether holding a right of usufruct over shareholdings is sufficient for tax exemption on dividends received, or whether full ownership is needed.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of a holding in the capital of a company of another Member State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, does not include the holding of shares in usufruct.

However, in compliance with the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the EC Treaty, applicable to cross-border situations, when a Member State, in order to avoid double taxation of received dividends, exempts from tax both the dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company in which it holds shares with full title and those which a resident company receives from another resident company in which it holds shares in usufruct, that Member State must apply, for the purpose of exempting received dividends, the same treatment to dividends received from a company established in another Member State by a resident company holding shares with full title as that which it applies to such dividends received by a resident company which holds shares in usufruct.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
2.

Article 7 of Directive 96/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a body of materials composed of separate modules, the volume of the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from one of those modules must, in order to assess whether there has been extraction and/or re-utilisation of a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively, of the contents of a database within the meaning of that article, be compared with the total contents of that module, if the latter constitutes, in itself, a database which fulfils the conditions for protection by the sui generis right. Otherwise, and in so far as the body of materials constitutes a database protected by that right, the comparison must be made between the volume of the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from the various modules of that database and its total contents. The fact that the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from a database protected by the sui generis right were obtained by the maker of that database from sources not accessible to the public may, according to the amount of human, technical and/or financial resources deployed by the maker to collect the materials at issue from those sources, affect the classification of those materials as a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively, of the contents of the database concerned, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 96/9. The fact that part of the materials contained in a database are official and accessible to the public does not relieve the national court of an obligation, in assessing whether there has been extraction and/or re-utilisation of a substantial part of the contents of that database, to verify whether the materials allegedly extracted and/or re-utilised from that database constitute a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively, of its contents or, as the case may be, whether they constitute a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively, of the database inasmuch as they represent, in terms of the obtaining, verification and presentation thereof, a substantial human, technical or financial investment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-475/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Electricity tax - Directive 2003/96/EC - First subparagraph of Article 21(5) - Time at which the tax becomes chargeable)

(2009/C 82/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Kozek, M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed time limit, the measures necessary to comply with Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA Relevance) (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adapt, by 1 January 2006, its system of electricity tax, with regard to the time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable, to the requirements of the first subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore (Italy)) — Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI

(Case C-415/07) (1)

(State aid for employment - Guidelines on aid to employment - Guidelines on national regional aid - Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 - Notion of ‘job creation’ - Calculation of the increase in employment)

2009/C 141/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA

Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3) — Ascertaining compliance with the requirements for obtaining aid — Ascertaining whether there has been an increase in employment — Method of calculation

Operative part of the judgment

In order to determine whether there has been an increase in employment, the guidelines on aid to employment should be interpreted as meaning that the average number of annual working units for the year preceding recruitment should be compared with the average number of annual working units for the year following such recruitment.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.

(Case C-320/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Refusal to register - Earlier trade mark of repute NASDAQ - Figurative sign ‘nasdaq’ - Use of the earlier mark for goods and services allegedly offered free of charge - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Relevant public)

2009/C 113/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Antartica Srl (represented by: E. Racca and A. Fusillo, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (represented by: J. van Manen and J. Hofhuis, advocaten)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06 Antartica v OHIM by which that Court dismissed as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for registration of the figurative trade mark ‘nasdaq’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28 against Decision R752/2004-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2005 setting aside the Opposition Division’s decision which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘NASDAQ’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Antartica Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-531/07) (1)

(Free movement of goods - National provisions on the obligation to sell imported books at fixed price - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports - Justification)

2009/C 153/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft

Defendant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) EC, 10 EC, 28 EC, 30 EC, 81 EC and 151 EC — National legislation requiring importers of German language books to fix a retail sales price which cannot be lower than that fixed for the country of origin

Operative part of the judgment

1. National provisions which prohibit importers of German-language books from fixing a price lower than the retail price fixed or recommended by the publisher in the State of publication constitute a ‘measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports’ within the meaning of Article 28 EC.

2. National provisions which prohibit importers of German-language books from fixing a price lower than the retail price fixed or recommended by the publisher in the State of publication cannot be justified under Articles 30 EC and 151 EC or by overriding requirements in the public interest.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-331/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Animal feed and food law - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls)

2009/C 141/08

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Erlbacher, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Charitaki and I. Chalkias, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) — Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having adopted all the measures necessary to remedy the shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-521/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Agreement on the European Economic Area - Article 40 - Free movement of capital - Discrimination in the treatment of dividends paid by Netherlands companies - Deduction at source - Exemption - Beneficiary companies established in Member States of the Community - Beneficiary companies established in Iceland or Norway)

2009/C 180/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and R. Lyal, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 40 EEA — Dividends paid to companies established in Norway or Iceland from withholding tax on dividends not exempted under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies

Operative part of the judgment

1. By not exempting dividends paid by Netherlands companies to companies established in Iceland or Norway from deduction at source of the tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies or companies of other Member States of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

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

(1) OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany)) — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(Case C-489/07) (1)

(Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Exercise by the consumer of the right of withdrawal - Compensation for use to be paid to the seller)

2009/C 256/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Defendant: Firma Stefan Krüger

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Lahr — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — Exercise of the right to revoke by the consumer — Compensation for use to be paid to the seller

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the second sentence of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides in general that, in the case of withdrawal by a consumer within the withdrawal period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods acquired under a distance contract.

However, those provisions do not prevent the consumer from being required to pay compensation for the use of the goods in the case where he has made use of those goods in a manner incompatible with the principles of civil law, such as those of good faith or unjust enrichment, on condition that the purpose of that directive and, in particular, the functionality and efficacy of the right of withdrawal are not adversely affected, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-457/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Construction products - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-implementation - Article 228 EC - Subject-matter of the dispute - Determination during the pre-litigation procedure - Subsequent extension - Not permissible)

2009/C 267/20

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, acting as Agent, N. Ruiz and C. Farinhas, advogados)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2005 in Case C-432/02 — Application for a penalty payment to be imposed

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 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-139/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to procedures for reviewing State aid - Exception concerning protection of the purposes of investigations - Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access)

2010/C 234/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, P. Aalto and C. Docksey, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (represented by C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, Rechtsanwälte), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Wistrand, S. Johannesson and K. Petkovska, Agents)

Intervener in support of Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission in which the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the Commission of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refused to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of State aid granted to it — Application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to cases involving the investigation of State aid — Obligation of the institution concerned to undertake a specific and individual appraisal of the content of the documents referred to in the request for access

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls points 1 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission;

2. Dismisses the action brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to procedures for reviewing State aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;

3. Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, both at first instance and on appeal;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-555/07) (1)

(Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of 25 in calculating the notice period - Justification for the measure - National legislation contrary to the directive - Role of the national court)

2010/C 63/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Seda Kücükdeveci

Defendant: Swedex GmbH & Co. KG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) — Interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of age, and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation relating to dismissals establishing notice periods which increase with length of service but in which any period of employment before the employee reaches the age of 25 is disregarded

Operative part of the judgment

1. European Union law, more particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that periods of employment completed by an employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal.

2. It is for the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, is complied with, disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national legislation, independently of whether it makes use of its entitlement, in the cases referred to in the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that principle.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.