ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of 1 July 1963. - Application for authorization to enforce a garnishee order against the European Economic Community. - Case 64-63.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00095

Dutch edition Page 00099

German edition Page 00103

Italian edition Page 00093

English special edition Page 00047



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 64/63

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ENFORCE A GARNISHEE ORDER AGAINST THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY;

Grounds

WHEREAS BY A JUDGMENT OF 4 DECEMBER 1962 THE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE INSTANCE, BRUSSELS, CONFIRMED THE GARNISHEE ORDER ISSUED ON THE APPLICATION OF JENNY POTVIN, A BELGIAN SUBJECT OF NO GAINFUL OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT 26 AVENUE PREKELINDEN, WOLUWE-SAINT-LAMBERT ( BRUSSELS ), AGAINST MAURICE VAN DE VELDE, A BELGIAN SUBJECT AND A SERVANT OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, BY VIRTUE OF A JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 18 JANUARY 1961 BY THE JUGE DE PAIX OF SAINT-JOSSE-TEN-NOODE, AND AUTHORIZED MRS POTVIN TO GARNISHEE SUMS IN THE HANDS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY WHICH THE SAID COMMUNITY ADMITS TO OWING OR MAY BE ADJUDGED TO OWE TO MR VAN DE VELDE;

WHEREAS BY AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 27 MAY 1963 MRS POTVIN, REPRESENTED BY PIERRE OLIVIERS, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR D'APPEL, BRUSSELS, HAS REQUESTED THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOL ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ANNEXED TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, TO SERVE ON THAT COMMUNITY THE GARNISHEE ORDER GRANTED BY THE BELGIAN COURT;

WHEREAS NEITHER THE STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES NOR THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OFFER GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL OF THE AUTHORIZATION SOUGHT :

UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;

UPON READING THE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY;

UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE - GENERAL;

HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY;

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY :

AUTHORIZES MRS POTVIN TO ENFORCE THE SAID GARNISHEE ORDER AGAINST THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF HER CLAIM AGAINST MR VAN DE VELDE .
2.

The review shall concern the questions whether – having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the entitlement to paid annual leave as a principle of European Union social law, which is also expressly affirmed in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is covered in particular by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) – the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2012 in Case T‑268/11 P Commission v Strack affects the unity or consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court: — interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and — consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/19

Appeal brought on 13 December 2006 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order made by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 27 September 2006 in Case T-440/05 Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament

(Case C-502/06 P)

(2008/C 22/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 21 November 2007 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
—

declare that, by prohibiting in Decree 12078/1343 of 3 March 2004 of the Minister for Transport, as interpreted on the basis of Circular 45007/4795 of 28 July 2004 issued by the Directorate for Road Safety and the Environment, window films which are manufactured and/or sold lawfully on the market of other Member States of the European Union from being placed on vehicle windows generally, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;
1.

In its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 the Court of Justice defined the requirements for the compatibility with Article 28 EC of the protection of a designation as a geographical indication which in the country of origin is the name neither of a place nor of a region, namely that such a designation must, — according to the factual circumstances and — perceptions in the country of origin, designate a region or a place in that State, — and that its protection must be justified there on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 30 EC. Do those requirements mean: 1.1. that the designation as such fulfils a specific geographical indication function referring to a particular place or a particular region, or does it suffice that the designation is capable, in conjunction with the product bearing it, of informing consumers that the product bearing it comes from a particular place or a particular region in the country of origin; 1.2. that the three conditions are conditions to be examined separately and to be satisfied cumulatively; 1.3. that a consumer survey is to be carried out for ascertaining perceptions in the country of origin, and, if so, that that a low, medium or high degree of recognition and association is required; 1.4. that the designation has actually been used as a geographical indication by several undertakings, not just one undertaking, in the country of origin and that use as a trade mark by a single undertaking precludes protection?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/10

Action brought on 23 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-521/07)

(2008/C 37/12)

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

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not exempting dividends paid to companies established in Norway or Iceland from withholding tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Netherlands tax law, tax on dividends is not withheld when a Netherlands company pays a dividend to another company established in the Netherlands which holds at least 5 % of the shares of the company which pays the dividend; by contrast the tax on dividends is withheld when the company which receives the dividend is established in Norway or Iceland, unless the receiving company owns at least 25 % (Norway) or 10 % (Iceland) of the shares in the Netherlands company which pays the dividend.

The Commission takes the view that Netherlands tax law thus gives rise to discrimination between companies established in Norway or Iceland and those established in the Netherlands. That constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital between the Netherlands and Norway and Iceland, contrary to Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (‘the EEA Agreement’) concerning the free movement of capital, a provision which, in essence, corresponds to Article 56 EC. The situation of Norwegian and Icelandic companies which have stakes in the capital of a Netherlands company is in fact objectively comparable to that of a Netherlands company holding such a stake. The Netherlands rules cannot be justified. Whilst it true that Member States may take measures to prevent abuse, those measures must none the less be proportionate to the objective pursued, which is not the case here.

(1) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994.
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, does the application of Article 6(2) of the Sixth Directive to services and goods other than capital goods mean that VAT is collected once during the tax period over which the deduction in respect of those services and goods is enjoyed, or must collection also occur in ensuing periods and, if so, how is the taxable amount to be determined in respect of goods and services which the taxable person does not write off?
2.

Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘fruit juices in their natural state’ is merely clarified by the words ‘obtained from fruits or by dilution of concentrated juice’, but in fact applies to all types of fruit juices (not cooked and without added alcohol) in the state in which they are presented?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/8

Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-516/07)

(2008/C 37/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to identify all the competent authorities for the application of the rules of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) 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 the directive; and

— by failing to communicate to the Commission the list of all the competent authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(8) of Directive 2000/60/EC;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission's application is based on Article 3 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.

According to Article 3(2) and (7) and (8), the Member States are required to identify the competent authorities for the application of the rules of Directive 2000/60/EC and to communicate the list of competent authorities to the Commission within a prescribed period.

(1) OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/15

Appeal brought on 3 April 2007 by Jean Yves Sellier against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2007 in Case T-276/06 Sellier v Commission

(Case C-191/07 P)

(2008/C 64/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean Yves Sellier (represented by: J.Y. Leeman, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

By order of 18 September 2007, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Sellier to bear his own costs.
1.

How are the terms ‘permanent transfer’ and ‘temporary transfer’ to be interpreted and to be delimited in relation to each other for the purpose of: — determining whether extraction within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC (1) from a database accessible by electronic means has taken place, — at what point in time is it to be assumed that extraction within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC from a database accessible by electronic means has taken place, — what is the significance, for the assessment of extraction, of the fact that the content of a database extracted in this way has served to create a new and amended database?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 27 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez

(Case C-571/07)

(2008/C 79/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez

Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez

Question referred

Does Article 43 [EC] preclude the legislation of the Autonomous Community of the Principality of Asturias concerning authorisation for the establishment of pharmacies?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/23

Appeal brought on 31 December 2007 by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-565/07 P)

(2008/C 64/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (represented by: S. Schäffler, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), American Medical Systems, Inc.

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007.

— Order the defendant and defendant on appeal to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on an infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. It was not until the proceedings before the Board of Appeal that the Court of First Instance refused to uphold the appellant's request for the opponent to prove the use of its mark. The Court of First Instance thereby misconceived the principle of continuity in terms of functions between OHIM departments and infringed Article 43(2) and (3) and Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94.

Pursuant to the principle of continuity in terms of functions between OHIM departments the Board of Appeal should have based its decision on all of the claims made by the appellant both in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and those before the Board of Appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/20

Appeal brought on 24 January 2008 by Giuseppe Gargani against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007 in Case T-94/06 Giuseppe Gargani v European Parliament

(Case C-25/08 P)

(2008/C 79/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Giuseppe Gargani (represented by: W. Rothley, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007 in its entirety;

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court of First Instance failed to give the appellant a fair hearing by failing to address the appellant's submissions and, instead, changing the parties and then declaring the action to be inadmissible.

The action, which was brought by the Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs, not (as stated in the order under appeal) by an individual as such, is expressly directed against the then President of the European Parliament, and not against the European Parliament itself or against a ‘natural person’. The Court of First Instance regards the appellant as any Italian applicant seeking a declaration that the conduct of the European Parliament is unlawful, and the President of the European Parliament at the time as any Spanish defendant being accused in respect of the unlawful conduct of the President of the European Parliament.

The Court of First Instance failed to ascertain whether the judicial system provides a means of redress that would enable the chairman of a committee to apply for a declaration of unlawfulness in respect of the conduct of the President of the European Parliament where the latter exceeds his powers under the Rules of Procedure and thereby infringes the participation rights of a committee chairman or of the Parliament as a whole.
(xiii)

Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, without the rightholder's consent be regarded as constituting ‘certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation’ of the newspaper articles and ‘not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of the rightholder’ (see Article 5(5))?
1.

The Greek authorities maintain that the activities of notaries are excluded from the application of Article 43 EC because they fall with the scope of application of Article 45 EC. They rely upon the status of notaries as public officials who confer on a notarised document increased evidential and executory force, similar to that of a judicial decision, with the use of the State seal, the status of notaries as judicial officials, their role as legal advisers, and a whole series of other activities. They also rely on the principle of territoriality, whereby Greek notaries are not permitted to establish themselves in other districts.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/78/EC of 14 November 2005 (1) implementing Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression-ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles (2) and amending Annexes I, II, III, IV and VI thereto, and, in any event, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/15

Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-52/08)

(2008/C 107/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to transpose, with regard to access to the profession of notary, Directive 2005/36/EC (1), which repealed and replaced Directive 89/48/EEC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Directive 2005/36/EC.

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that, by failing to permit notaries from other Member States to exercise their profession in Portugal although they have the right to exercise that profession in a Member State in which it is a regulated profession or where they have exercised that profession in accordance with the applicable rules in a Member State in which it is not a regulated profession, the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2005/36.

In any event, by requiring those intending to practise as notaries to have a degree in law from a Portuguese university or an academic qualification equivalent to that required under the Portuguese law, Portugal has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 14 of that directive.

Moreover, by requiring that, before commencing their training, those intending to practise as notaries should pass public examinations intended to test their general knowledge of law, the Portuguese State has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) and 14(3)(h) of Directive 2005/36.

The Commission therefore considers that the Portuguese State has failed to transpose into its domestic law Directive 2005/36 so far as concerns the profession of notary.

(1) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

(2) OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.
1.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003, which imposes an additional levy on production of milk and milk products in excess of the national quota allocated, without taking account of periodical updating of the quantity allocated to each Community country following specific verification of the respective quantities produced, compatible with Article 32 of the Treaty and with the aims of the common agricultural policy which that article sets out, such as increasing agricultural productivity, developing technical progress, ensuring rational development of agriculture and also optimising utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour, since that mechanism also has an impact on Italian milk and milk products producers, detracting from a fair standard of living and from development as a result of inadequate remuneration of the factors of production and since Italy is in fact a milk-deficit country (see the government report cited above, paragraph 6.5), forced to import raw material to sustain the industries engaged in the processing and marketing of quality products (see the agricultural report of 15 February 2004, annexed hereto)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 12 March 2008 — SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation v Alpenblume Aktiebolag

(Case C-111/08)

(2008/C 116/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta Domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation

Defendant: Alpenblume Aktiebolag

Question referred

Is the exception in the Brussels I Regulation regarding insolvency, compositions and analogous proceedings to be interpreted as meaning that it covers a decision given by a court in one Member State (A) regarding registration of ownership of shares in a company having its registered office in Member State A, which ownership is transferred by the liquidator to a company in another Member State (B), where the court based its decision on the fact that Member State A, in the absence of an agreement between the States regarding mutual recognition of insolvency proceedings, does not recognise the liquidator's powers of disposal over property in Member State A?
4.

In the case of consultations to be carried on in a subsidiary belonging to a group, and in assessing in the light of the provisions of Article 2(4) of the directive the obligation under Article 2(1) to enter into consultations when ‘contemplating’ collective redundancies and ‘in good time’, does the obligation to start consultations already arise when the management of the group or the parent company contemplates collective redundancies but that intention has not yet taken concrete form as concerning the employees in the service of a particular subsidiary under its control, or does the obligation to embark on consultations within the subsidiary arise only at the stage when the management of the group or the parent company contemplates collective redundancies specifically in that subsidiary company?