ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of Article 47(5) and (6) of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 where an undertaking is in critical difficulties within the meaning of subparagraph (c) of the fifth paragraph of Article 2 of Law No 675 of 12 August 1977 so that the rights of employees set out in Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses are not safeguarded in the event of the transfer of an undertaking which has been declared to be in critical difficulties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
1.

Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it authorises the Member States to impose public service obligations on a public undertaking entrusted with the provision of public passenger transport in a municipality and that it provides for compensation to be granted in respect of the financial burdens resulting therefrom; the amount of such compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of that regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-397/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital companies - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 2(1) and (3), 4(1) and 7 - Capital duty - Exemption - Conditions - Transfer of effective centre of management or of registered office from one Member State to another Member State - Capital duty on the capital allocated to commercial activities pursued in a Member State by branches or permanent establishments of companies established in another Member State)

2009/C 205/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and M. Afonso, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 June 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Transfer of the registered office of a company — National law providing for the taxation of a transfer of registered office to the extent that the company involved is not subject to capital duty in the Member State of origin — Conditions for application of obligatory exemptions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that: — by making the exemption from capital duty for the transactions referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973, Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 and Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 96 of the second additional provision of the consolidated version of the Spanish Law on corporation tax (Disposición Adicional Segunda del texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades), enacted by Royal Legislative Decree No 4/2004 of 5 March 2004; — by subjecting to capital duty the transfer, from a Member State to Spain, of the effective centre of management or the registered office of capital companies which have not been subject to a similar tax in their country of origin, and — by subjecting to capital duty capital allocated to commercial activities pursued in Spain by branches or permanent establishments of companies established in a Member State which does not apply a similar tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/335, as amended by Directives 73/79, 73/80 and 85/303;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy

(Case C-303/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Corporation tax - Distribution of dividends - Withholding tax charged on dividends paid to non-resident companies other than companies within the meaning of that directive - Exemption for dividends paid to resident companies)

2009/C 180/07

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC and Article 2(a) 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 (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Retention at source on dividends distributed to a parent company established in another Member State, but exemption for dividends distributed to a parent company established on national territory — Taxable person not mentioned in the directive on parent companies and subsidiaries — Tax convention — Restriction of fundamental freedoms — Comparable situation.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which exempts from withholding tax dividends distributed by a subsidiary resident in that State to a share company resident in that State, but charges withholding tax on similar dividends paid to a parent company in the form of an open-ended investment company (SICAV) resident in another Member State which has a legal form unknown in the law of the former State, does not appear on the list of companies referred to in Article 2(a) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, and is exempt from income tax under the law of the other Member State.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH

(Case C-520/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Restructuring aid - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Joint and several liability)

2009/C 267/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and B. Martenczuk, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH (represented by: Th. Lübbig and M. le Bell, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance annulled Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2002/898/EC of 9 April 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH, in so far as it orders MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH to repay jointly and severally a sum of EUR 2,71 million — Limits and conditions on the application of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, allowing the Commission to adopt a final decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market on the basis of the information available if a Member State fails to comply with an information injunction

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-534/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European haberdashery market (needles) - Market sharing agreements - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Fine - Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Actual impact on the market - Implementation of the cartel)

2009/C 256/08

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, C. Herrmann and M. Röhrig, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05 Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission, in which the Court fixed the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a procedure for the application of Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F-1/38.338-PO/Needles) at EUR 27 million — Agreement, decision or concerted practice in the market for haberdashery (needles)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-540/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Withholding at source on outgoing dividends - Set-off at the place of establishment of the recipient of the dividend, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation)

2010/C 24/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Aresu, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: R. Adam, Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 EC and 40 EEA — Tax system more onerous, for dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States and in EEA States, than that applied to ‘domestic’ dividends

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by making dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States subject to a less favourable tax regime than that applied to dividends distributed to resident companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay three quarters of the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the remaining quarter.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-562/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Natural persons - Taxation of capital gains - Difference in treatment of residents and non residents)

2009/C 282/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 39 EC and 56 EC and of Articles 28 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment, with regard to the taxation of income received in Spain, between residents and non-residents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by treating differently, until 31 December 2006, capital gains realised in Spain according to whether they were made by residents or by non-residents, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

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

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-484/07) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Family reunification - First indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Child of a Turkish worker who lived together with that worker for more than three years, but married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that provision - National law calling into question, on that ground, the residence permit of the person concerned)

2011/C 232/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fatma Pehlivan

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond — Interpretation of the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Child of a Turkish worker who resided with that worker for at least three years but who married a Turkish national in Turkey during that period without informing the competent authorities

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that:

— that provision precludes legislation of a Member State under which a family member properly authorised to join a Turkish migrant worker who is already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that State loses the enjoyment of the rights based on family reunification under that provision for the reason only that, having attained majority, he or she gets married, even where he or she continues to live with that worker during the first three years of his or her residence in the host Member State;

— a Turkish national who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within that provision may validly claim a right of residence in the host Member State on the basis thereof, notwithstanding the fact that he or she got married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, in the case where, during the whole of that period, he or she actually lived under the same roof as the Turkish migrant worker through whom he or she was admitted to the territory of that State on the ground of family reunification.

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-113/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/49/EC - Investment firms and credit institutions - Capital adequacy - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 19/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-A. Rabanal Suárez and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) (OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) and, in particular, Articles 17, 22 to 25, 30, 33, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 50 and Annexes I, II and VII thereto, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
1.

Once a non-return decision has been taken and brought to the attention of the court of origin, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, that that decision has been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, has not become res judicata or has been replaced by a decision ordering return, in so far as the return of the child has not actually taken place. Since no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the standard form set out in Annex IV to the Regulation, opposition to the recognition of the decision ordering return is not permitted and it is for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the child.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-293/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 82/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-239/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Free movement of persons - Amendment of certain directives by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union - Failure to transcribe within the prescribed period)

(2009/C 32/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-184/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 - Article 18 - Market for detergents and for surfactants for detergents - Sanctions)

2009/C 113/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed time-limit dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, sanctions in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

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

(1) OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.