ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-390/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Article 3(1) and (2), Article 5(1) to (3) and (5) and Annexes I and II - Initial failure to identify sensitive areas - Concept of ‘eutrophication’ - Criteria - Burden of proof - Relevant date when considering the evidence - Implementation of collection obligations - Implementation of more stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)

2010/C 24/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, X. Lewis and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Gibbs and V. Jackson, Agents, D. Anderson QC and S. Ford, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M.J. Lois, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 3(1) and (2) and 5(1) to (3) and (5) of, and Annex II to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to identify certain areas as sensitive areas with respect to eutrophication and to subject urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 to more stringent treatment where it is discharged into sensitive areas or areas which should have been identified as sensitive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by having failed to subject discharges of urban waste water from Craigavon (Ballynacor and Bullay’s Hill treatment plants) and Magherafelt to more stringent treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

4. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (C-125/07 P), Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (C-133/07 P), Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (C-135/07 P), Österreichische Volksbanken AG (C-137/07 P) v Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-125/07 P, C-133/07 P, C-135/07 P and C-137/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fixing by Austrian banks of credit and debit interest rates - ‘Lombard Club’ - Effect on trade between Member States - Calculation of fines - Takeover of undertakings - Concrete impact on the market - Implementation of the cartel)

2009/C 282/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (C-125/07 P) (represented by: F. Montag, Rechtsanwalt), Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (C-133/07 P) (represented by: S. Völcker and G. Terhorst, Rechtsanwälte), Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (C-135/07 P) (represented by: C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Rechtsanwälte), Österreichische Volksbanken AG (C-137/07 P) (represented by: A. Ablasser, R. Bierwagen and F. Neumayr, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and R. Sauer, Agents, D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and U. Zinsmeister, Rechstanwältin)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02, here with regard to Case T-264/02 Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v Commission, by which the Court dismissed in part the action, primarily, for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/138/EC of 11 June 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.571/D-1: Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’) (OJ 2004 L 56, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants — Cartel concerning the banking products and services market — Effect on trade between Member States — Method of calculating fines

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Erste Group Bank AG, formerly Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG, Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG and Österreichische Volksbanken AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-535/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Incorrect designation and inadequate legal protection of special protection areas)

2010/C 346/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, E. Pürgy and K. Drechsel, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of Article 6(2), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Failure to designate, as a special protection area, an area appropriate for the conservation of bird species (‘Hanság’) and incorrect delimitation of another area (‘Niedere Tauern’) — Failure to ensure that the special protection areas already designated enjoy legal protection in accordance with the requirements of Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that: — by failing to classify the Hanság site in the Province of Burgenland as a special protection area, and to delimit the Niedere Tauern special protection area in the Province of Styria, correctly in accordance with ornithological criteria, under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and — by failing to provide legal protection in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 79/409 and Article 6(2), read in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora for the Maltsch, Wiesengebiete im Freiwald, Pfeifer Anger, Oberes Donautal and Untere Traun special protection areas in the Province of Upper Austria and the Verwall special protection area in the Province of Vorarlberg, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-423/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/37/EEC - Articles 3 and 11 - Public works concession contracts - Obligations regarding advertising - Extent of the obligations - Contract notice - Description of the object of the concession and of the location of the works - Additional works not expressly set out in the contract notice or in the tender specifications - Principle of equal treatment)

(2010/C 161/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and M. Konstantinidis, and by S. Pardo Quintillán, and by M. Canal Fontcuberta, abogada)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3 and Article 11(3) (6) (7)(11) and (12) of Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Infringement of the principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination — Works not covered by the concession — Award subsequent to award of concession

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by awarding to Iberpistas, on 5 November 1999 — the construction of a third lane in each direction on the part of the toll section of the A-6 motorway between Villalba and the Valle de los Caídos junction, — the construction of a third reversible lane on the part of the toll section of the A-6 motorway between the Valle de los Caídos junction and the city of San Rafael, including the construction of a new tunnel, and — the construction of a fourth lane in each direction on the toll-free section of the A-6 motorway between Madrid and Villalba, without those works having been listed in the object of the public works concession contract, as described in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or in the tender specifications, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 11(3) and (6) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, read in conjunction with Annex V thereto;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

(1) OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux — France) — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-18/08) (1)

(Tax on motor vehicles - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Article 6(2)(b) - Commission decision approving an exemption - No direct effect)

(2009/C 6/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL

Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) — Interpretation of Commission Decision 2005/449/EC, concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 2005 L 158, p. 23) — Whether that decision has direct effect or, as an authorisation decision, requires a measure transposing it into national law?

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision 2005/449/EC of 20 June 2005 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures cannot be relied on by an individual against the French Republic, to which that decision was addressed, in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption approved by that decision upon its notification or publication.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-289/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Article 11(1)(c) - External emergency plans - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 113/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos, 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 draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up within the period prescribed an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive.

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

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

(Case C-19/08) (1)

(Right of asylum - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application - Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker - Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)

(2009/C 69/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Migrationsverket

Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) — Interpretation of Articles 20(1)(d) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Taking back by a Member State of an applicant for asylum who is in another Member State and lodged another application for asylum there — Start of the period for transfer of the asylum seeker

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national are to be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the requesting Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal, the period for implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending the implementation of the transfer procedure, but only as from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-266/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/81/EC - Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities - Failure to transpose completely - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

2009/C 153/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, 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 209, of 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku

(Case C-139/08) (1)

(Visas, asylum, immigration - Third-country national holding a Swiss residence permit - Entry of and stay in the territory of a Member State for purposes other than transit - Lack of a visa)

2009/C 141/29

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

Party/parties in the main proceedings

Rafet Kqiku

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision No 896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory (OJ 2006 L 167, p. 8) — Possibility for a national of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro residing in Switzerland and holding a Swiss type C permanent resident permit to enter the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany for purposes other than transit and to remain there for two days without a visa

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Decision No 896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory must be interpreted as meaning that the residence permits listed in the annex to that decision, issued by the Swiss Confederation or the Principality of Liechtenstein to third-country nationals subject to a visa requirement, are considered to be equivalent to a transit visa only. As regards entering the territory of the Member States for the purpose of transit, the requirements laid down in Articles 1(1) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement are fulfilled if the person covered by that decision is in possession of a residence permit issued by the Swiss Confederation or the Principality of Liechtenstein which is listed in the annex to that decision.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.07.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Republic of Latvia) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-16/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Active matrix liquid crystal devices)

2009/C 180/21

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Interpretation of 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) — Active matrix liquid crystal device (LCD) — Classification in heading 8528 21 90 or 9013 80 20 of the Combined Nomenclature — Whether an article has or not the essential characteristics of a complete or finished product.

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8528 21 90 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting 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 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as not applying, as at 29 December 2004, to active matrix liquid crystal devices (LCD) principally made up of the following elements:

— two glass plates;

— a layer of liquid crystal inserted between the two plates;

— vertical and horizontal signal drivers;

— backlight;

— inverter providing high-voltage power for backlight;

and

— control block — data transmission interface (control PCB or PWB) to ensure sequential transmission of data to each pixel (dot) of the LCD unit using specific technology — LVDS (low-voltage differential signalling).

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-256/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who need international protection - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period)

2009/C 153/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O’Reilly and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the 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 (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all 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, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.