ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-448/06) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 - Veterinary medicinal product - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin - Progesterone - Restrictions on use - Directive 96/22/EC)

(2008/C 223/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: cp-Pharma Handels GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 9) in so far as, by limiting the conditions of use of progesterone, as an active substance of veterinary medicinal products, to application via the intravaginal route alone, it excludes the possibility of administering that substance in the form of an intramuscular injection — Whether or not the Commission has power to make that limitation in the light of Articles 1(a) and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3)

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-247/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Effects of certain projects on the environment - Heating installation - Energy production - Partial incineration of dangerous products)

(2008/C 327/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: T. Harris, I. Rao and J. Maurici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Authorisation of a heating installation for the production of energy which partly incinerates dangerous waste without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment — Waste disposal and waste recovery operations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;

3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Moser Baer India Ltd v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

(Case C-535/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of recordable compact discs originating in India - Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 - Calculation of the amount of countervailable subsidy - Determination of injury - Article 8(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97)

2009/C 256/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents), Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03 Moser Baer India v Council, which dismissed an action for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact discs originating in India (OJ 2003 L 138, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the appellant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Moser Baer India Ltd to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.
1.

Declares that, by rejecting tenders in respect of medical devices bearing the CE certification marking, without the competent contracting authorities of Greek hospitals having complied with the procedure provided for in Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, and Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 93/42, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-67/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/24/EC - Traditional herbal medicinal products - Community code - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 22/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues abd R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85)

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 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95 of 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy)) — Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della Regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia v Domenico Valvo

(Case C-78/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulations (EEC) No 2328/91 and (EC) No 950/97 - Articles 17 and 18 - Compensatory allowances for permanent natural handicaps - Farmers receiving length-of-service pensions - Right to compensatory allowances - Limits)

(2008/C 116/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della Regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia

Defendant: Domenico Valvo

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures — National legislation refusing to grant the compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps to farmers in receipt of a length-of-service pension

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 17 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures confer on Member States the right to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer who fulfils the conditions laid down in those two articles. However, those articles do not preclude a Member State from refusing payment of such an allowance where that farmer is in receipt of a pension, in particular, a length-of-service pension.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-328/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 92/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and Corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)

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 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, 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, 8.9.2007.
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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 is a provision which, in order to be implemented by a Member State, requires prior consultation by that State of the Advisory Committee on value added tax and the adoption of national legislation authorising persons, in particular companies, established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, no longer to be treated as separate taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax in order to be treated as a single taxable person to whom a single value added tax identification number is allocated and, accordingly, the sole person entitled to submit value added tax declarations. It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfies those criteria, subject to the qualification that, where there has been no prior consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax, national legislation which meets those criteria constitutes legislation adopted in breach of the procedural requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Cornu SA Fontain

(Case C-108/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark FERRO - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark FERRERO - Evidence of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark)

(2008/C 142/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent), Cornu SA Fontain

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM and Cornu in proceedings against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG mbH and Cornu SA Fontain — Interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between the two marks — Moderate degree of similarity between the marks — Little similarity between the goods — Distinctive character of the earlier mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO);

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4);

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain to pay the costs of the appeal;

4. Orders Ferrero Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

5. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

6. Orders Cornu SA Fontain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in relation to its intervention.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
2.

Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that under its recruitment policy it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43. It is then for that employer to prove that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment. It can do so by showing that the undertaking's actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements. It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of the employer's contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

(Case C-304/07) (1)

(Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Sui generis right - Concept of ‘extraction’ of the contents of a database)

(2008/C 301/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Directmedia Publishing GmbH

Defendant: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20) — Adoption of data from a protected database and their incorporation in a different database on the basis of individual assessments following a close examination of those data, without any copying being carried out — Whether such a data adoption and incorporation operation constitutes ‘extraction’ within the meaning of Directive 96/9/EC

Operative part of the judgment

The transfer of material from a protected database to another database following an on-screen consultation of the first database and an individual assessment of the material contained in that first database is capable of constituting an ‘extraction’, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, to the extent that — which it is for the referring court to ascertain — that operation amounts to the transfer of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, of the contents of the protected database, or to transfers of insubstantial parts which, by their repeated or systematic nature, would have resulted in the reconstruction of a substantial part of those contents.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

(Case C-265/07) (1)

(Commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Combating of late payment - Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims)

(2008/C 285/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caffaro Srl

Defendant: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

In the presence of: Banca di Roma SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Roma — Interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Recovery procedures for uncontested debts — National legislation laying down that a period of 120 days from the date of notification of the recovery order must elapse before recovery of the debt may be enforced

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision such as Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996 of 31 December 1996, converted into a law, after amendment, by Law No 30 of 28 February 1997, as amended by Article 147 of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title in respect of an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the authority.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — The Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd

(Case C-209/07) (1)

(Competition - Article 81(1) EC - Concept of an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’ - Agreement to reduce production capacity - Beef and veal)

(2009/C 6/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Competition Authority

Respondents: Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court, Ireland — Interpretation of Article 81(1) EC — Measures limiting or controlling production — Inclusion of an agreement whose effect is to reduce structural capacity selectively

Operative part of the judgment

An agreement with features such as those of the standard form of contract concluded between the 10 principal beef and veal processors in Ireland, who are members of Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, and requiring, among other things, a reduction of the order of 25 % in processing capacity, has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds tingsrätt — Sweden) — Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders Holmqvist

(Case C-310/07) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 8a - Activities carried out in a number of Member States)

(2008/C 313/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Lunds tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser

Defendant: Anders Holmqvist

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lunds Tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2003 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Wage guarantee for a worker employed in a road haulage undertaking having its head office and only establishment in a Member State and which carries out deliveries of goods between the Member State of origin and other Member States.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an undertaking established in a Member State to be regarded as having activities in the territory of another Member State, that undertaking does not need to have a branch or fixed establishment in that other State. The undertaking must, however, have a stable economic presence in the latter State, featuring human resources which enable it to perform activities there. In the case of a transport undertaking established in a Member State, the mere fact that a worker employed by it in that State delivers goods between that State and another Member State cannot demonstrate that the undertaking has a stable economic presence in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.