ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-249/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - Control system in the fisheries sector - Regulation (EC) No 894/97 - Article 11 - Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 - Article 1(1) and (2) - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) - Prohibition of driftnets - Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure compliance with that prohibition)

2009/C 312/11

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1) and of Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities — Measures to be taken in the case of non-compliance with the rules in force — Provisions relating to the retention on board or use of driftnets

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to control, inspect and survey in a satisfactory manner fishing activities within its territory and within the waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, in particular with regard to compliance with the provisions governing the retention on board and use of driftnets, and by not ensuring in a satisfactory manner that appropriate measures are taken against those responsible for infringements of the Community rules on the retention on board and use of driftnets, in particular by the imposition of dissuasive penalties on those persons, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy)) — Acoset SpA v Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov. Reg. ATO Idrico Ragusa, Comune di Comiso (RG), Comune di Modica (RG), Provincia Regionale di Ragusa, Comune di Acate (RG), Comune di Chiaramonte Gulfi (RG), Comune di Giarratana (RG), Comune di Ispica (RG), Comune di Monterosso Almo (RG), Comune di Pozzallo (RG), Comune di Ragusa, Comune di Vittoria (RG), Comune di Santa Croce Camerina (RG), Comune di Scicli (RG)

(Case C-196/08) (1)

(Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Award of public contracts - Award of water service to a semi-private company - Competitive procedure - Appointment of the private partner responsible for operating the service - Award made without regard to the rules governing the award of public contracts)

2009/C 297/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Acoset SpA

Defendants: Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov. Reg. ATO Idrico Ragusa, Comune di Comiso (RG), Comune di Modica (RG), Provincia Regionale di Ragusa, Comune di Acate (RG), Comune di Chiaramonte Gulfi (RG), Comune di Giarratana (RG), Comune di Ispica (RG), Comune di Monterosso Almo (RG), Comune di Pozzallo (RG), Comune di Ragusa, Comune di Vittoria (RG), Comune di Santa Croce Camerina (RG), Comune di Scicli (RG)

Intervening party: Saceccav Depurazioni Sacede SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Award of water service to a semi-private company appointing, in accordance with a competitive procedure, a private partner to be responsible for operating the service — Award made without regard to the rules governing the award of public contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC do not preclude the direct award of a public service which entails the prior execution of certain works, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to a semi-public company formed specifically for the purpose of providing that service and possessing a single corporate purpose, the private participant in the company being selected by means of a public and open procedure after verification of the financial, technical, operational and management requirements specific to the service to be performed and of the characteristics of the tender with regard to the service to be delivered, provided that the tendering procedure in question is consistent with the principles of free competition, transparency and equal treatment laid down by the EC Treaty with regard to concessions.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
2.

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authorities of a Member State consider an application of a national of another Member State to be admitted to serve a practical training period, such as a legal traineeship for the legal professions in Germany, with a view to exercising a regulated legal profession at a later date, that article does not of itself oblige those authorities to require from the candidate, in the examination of equivalence required by Community law, merely a level of legal knowledge which is lower than that attested by the qualification required in that Member State for access to such a period of practical training. However, Article 39 EC does not preclude a degree of flexibility as regards the qualification required. Moreover it is important that, in practice, the possibility of partial recognition of the knowledge attested by qualifications which the person concerned has obtained should be more than merely notional. That is a matter for the national court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-564/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Turnover and share of the relevant market - Value of ‘captive’ use - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)

2010/C 11/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: SGL Carbon (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and W. Mölls, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-68/04 SGL Carbon v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application brought by the appellant for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Failure to take into consideration, by classifying it as a new complaint that is inadmissible, the appellant’s argument concerning the taking into account of the value of the captive use in calculating the turnover and market shares of the undertakings concerned — Infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Carbon AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 69 of 21.03.2009
1.

By not correctly applying and imposing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, in so far as it regards burial in landfills without prior treatment, lack of official controls, authorisation of plants for the management of animal by-products and incineration of specified risk materials, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation No 1774/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords, United Kingdom) — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB

(Case C-358/08) (1)

(Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Articles 3 and 11 - Mistake in the classification of ‘producer’ - Judicial proceedings - Application for substitution of the producer for the original defendant - Expiry of the limitation period)

2010/C 24/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aventis Pasteur SA

Defendant: OB

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — Action brought against a company wrongly considered to be the producer of the allegedly defective product — Whether another party may be substituted for the defendant after the ten-year limitation period laid down in Article 11 of the Directive — Person designated as defendant in the proceedings brought during the ten-year period not a ‘producer’ as defined in Article 3 of the Directive

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which allows the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings, from being applied in a way which permits a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3 of that directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.

However, first, Article 11 must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from holding that, in the proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, that producer can be substituted for that subsidiary if that court finds that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.

Second, Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able to identify the producer of that product before exercising his rights against the supplier of that product, that supplier must be treated as a ‘producer’ for the purposes, in particular, of the application of Article 11 of that directive, if it did not inform the injured person, on its own initiative and promptly, of the identity of the producer or its own supplier. That is for the national court to determine in the light of the circumstances of the case.

(1) OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Bertram Holst v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS

(Case C-405/08) (1)

(Social policy - Informing and consulting employees - Directive 2002/14/EC - Transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC by way of legislation and also by way of collective agreement - Effects of the collective agreement with regard to an employee who is not a member of the union which is a party to that agreement - Article 7 - Protection of employees’ representatives - Requirement of more extensive protection against dismissal - No requirement)

2010/C 80/04

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Bertram Holst

Defendant: Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) — Implementation of the directive through a collective agreement — Effects of the collective agreement for an employee who is not a member of the union which concluded that agreement — Implementing legislation not providing for a higher standard of protection against dismissal than currently provided for, in respect of groups of employees not covered by the collective agreement

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community must be interpreted as not precluding its transposition by way of a collective agreement which results in a group of employees being covered by the agreement in question, even though the employees in that group are not members of the union which is a party to that agreement and their field of activity is not represented by that union, provided that the collective agreement is such as to guarantee to the employees coming within its scope effective protection of the rights conferred on them by Directive 2002/14.

2. Article 7 of Directive 2002/14 must be interpreted as not requiring that more extensive protection against dismissal be granted to employees’ representatives. However, any measure adopted to transpose that directive, whether provided for by legislation or by collective agreement, must comply with the minimum protection threshold laid down in that Article 7.

(1) OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8, 9, 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — Christos Gogos v European Commission

(Case C-583/08 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Internal competition for promotion from one category to another - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Unlimited jurisdiction - Dispute of a financial character - Length of proceedings before the General Court - Reasonable time - Claim for equitable compensation)

2010/C 179/12

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Christos Gogos (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by P.I. Anestis, dikigoros)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-66/04 Gogos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to place the applicant in Grade A 7 when he was appointed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Gogos and the Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover, formerly Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

(Case C-370/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 84, Note 5(B) - Adapter containing a memory-chip and designed to provide the electrical connection between an automatic programming machine and electrical components to be programmed - Headings 8471, 8473 and 8536)

2010/C 179/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Data I/O GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover, formerly Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Electrical adapter ensuring the transmission of data from a programming machine to the electronic components to be programmed and containing a memory chip ensuring the storage of the programming process — Possibility of classification under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature

Operative part of the judgment

An adapter, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which performs the functions of the electrical connection between the programming machine and the components to be programmed and of the storage of the programming process, which can be retrieved later, fulfils the condition set out in Note 5(B)(c) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 and must be classified under heading 8471 thereof as a ‘unit’ of an automatic data-processing machine, in so far as its main function is to carry out data-processing. Where that function is absent, such an adapter must be classified under heading 8473 of the Combined Nomenclature as a ‘part’ or ‘accessory’ of a machine, as the case may be, if it is either essential to the functioning of that machine or constitutes a part or device designed to adapt a machine for a particular operation or an element to perform a particular service relative to the main function of that machine, which it is for the referring court to determine. Where that adapter cannot be classified under either of the abovementioned headings, it must be considered to be an ‘electrical apparatus for making connections to or in electrical circuits’, and consequently to fall under heading 8536 of the Combined Nomenclature

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-471/08) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Articles 5(2) and 11(1) - Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her pregnancy - Compulsory transfer because of a risk to her safety or health and that of her child - Pay less than the average pay received before the transfer - Previous pay made up of a basic salary and various supplementary allowances - Calculation of the salary to which a pregnant worker is entitled during the period of her temporary transfer)

2010/C 234/13

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sanna Maria Parviainen

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Interpretation of Article 11(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Air hostess having worked as a purser, transferred on account of her pregnancy to ground activities which pay less than the post occupied before the transfer — Maintenance of remuneration equivalent to the remuneration received prior to the transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as meaning that a pregnant worker who, in accordance with Article 5(2) thereof, has been temporarily transferred on account of her pregnancy to a job in which she performs tasks other than those she performed prior to that transfer, is not entitled to the pay she received on average prior to that transfer. In addition to the maintenance of her basic salary, such a worker is entitled, pursuant to Article 11(1), to pay components or supplementary allowances relating to her professional status, such as allowances relating to her seniority, her length of service and her professional qualifications. Although Article 11(1) of Directive 92/85 does not preclude the use of a method of calculating remuneration to be paid to such a worker based on the average amount of the allowances linked to working conditions of all the air crew in the same pay grade during a given reference period, the failure to take account of those pay components or supplementary allowances must be regarded as contrary to the latter provision.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-571/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - Justification - Protection of public health)

2010/C 221/11

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, then by G. Palmieri, acting as Agents and F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — Fixing minimum prices — Approval of prices.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing for a minimum price for cigarettes, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.