ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden)) — SCT Industri AB i likvidation v Alpenblume AB

(Case C-111/08) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Scope - Insolvency)

2009/C 205/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCT Industri AB i likvidation

Defendant: Alpenblume AB

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Judgment of a court in Member State A ruling that the liquidator in insolvency proceedings in Member State B does not have power to transfer the assets of the company in liquidation located in Member State A — Action for recovery of property brought by the transferee company to recover the shares in a company which it had acquired in the insolvency proceedings but which were taken back by the transferring company pursuant to the judgment annulling the transfer

Operative part of the judgment

The exception provided for in Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 44/2001 (EC) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying to a judgment of a court of Member State A regarding registration of ownership of shares in a company having its registered office in Member State A, according to which the transfer of those shares was to be regarded as invalid on the ground that the court of Member State A did not recognise the powers of a liquidator from a Member State B in the context of insolvency proceedings conducted and closed in Member State B.

(1) OJ C 116, 09.05.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/19

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany)) — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

(Case C-201/08) (1)

(Directive 2003/30/EC - Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport - Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Blend of vegetable oil, additives and fuel - Biofuels - National rules - Tax exemption - Replacement of the exemption by an obligation to maintain a minimum biofuel content in fuels - Conformity with Directives 2003/30/EC and 2003/96/EC - General principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

2009/C 267/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42) and the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation — National legislation replacing, before the time-limit laid down by the previous legislation, rules providing for tax exemptions for biofuels forming part of a fuel blend with an obligation to add biofuels to conventional fuels, with the effect of placing producers who had taken advantage of those exemptions at an economic disadvantage.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3 of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude, from the tax exemption scheme provided for in those rules for biofuels, a product, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which is composed of a blend of vegetable oil, fossil gas oil and specific additives.

2. The general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations do not in principle preclude a Member State, with regard to a product such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, from withdrawing, before the expiry date initially laid down in the national rules, a tax exemption scheme which applied to such products. In any event, such a withdrawal does not require the presence of exceptional circumstances. However, it is for the national court to consider, in the context of an overall assessment in the specific case, whether those principles have been respected in the main proceedings by taking account of all relevant circumstances relating to the case.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/6

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-464/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/65/EC - Transport policy - Security of ports - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 256/11

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Simonsson and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by L. Uibo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28)

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 Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Bilbao — Spain) — Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

(Case C-40/08) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Unfair arbitration clause - Measure void - Arbitration award which has become final - Enforcement - Whether the national court responsible for enforcement can consider of its own motion whether the unfair arbitration clause is null and void - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

2009/C 282/12

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Bilbao

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL

Defendant: Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Bilbao — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms — Application for the enforcement of a final arbitration award made in default on the basis of an unfair arbitration clause

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal hearing an action for enforcement of an arbitration award which has become final and was made in the absence of the consumer is required, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, to assess of its own motion whether an arbitration clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, in so far as, under national rules of procedure, it can carry out such an assessment in similar actions of a domestic nature. If that is the case, it is for that court or tribunal to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-188/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Waste - Domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks in the countryside - Waste not covered by other legislation - Failure to transpose)

2009/C 312/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Lawunmi and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement, so far as domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks is concerned, of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Waste not covered by other legislation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, save in County Cavan, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs;

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

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — C. Meerts v Proost NV

(Case C-116/08) (1)

(Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Interpretation of Clause 2.6 and 2.7 - Part-time parental leave - Dismissal of a worker before the end of parental leave without observing the statutory period of notice - Calculation of compensation)

2009/C 297/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C. Meerts

Respondent: Proost NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of clauses 2.4 to 2.7 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Parental leave in the form of part-time working — Dismissal of the employee before the end of the period of parental leave without urgent cause or without observing the statutory period of notice — Calculation of payment in lieu of notice

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding, where an employer unilaterally terminates a worker’s full-time employment contract of indefinite duration, without urgent cause or without observing the statutory period of notice, whilst the worker is on part-time parental leave, the compensation to be paid to the worker from being determined on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt (Sweden)) — Kemikalieinspektionen v Nordiska Dental AB

(Case C-288/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Prohibition on the exportation of dental amalgam containing mercury and bearing the ‘CE’ conformity marking - Protection of health and the environment)

2010/C 24/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kemikalieinspektionen

Defendant: Nordiska Dental AB

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Articles 29 EC and 30 EC and of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting export of dental amalgam containing mercury

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which the commercial exportation of dental amalgams containing mercury and bearing the ‘CE’ marking provided for in Article 17 of that directive is prohibited on grounds relating to protection of the environment and of health.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz — Austria) — Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ as

(Case C-115/08) (1)

(Action for cessation of actual or potential nuisance caused to land by the activities of a nuclear power plant situated on the territory of another Member State - Obligation to tolerate actual or potential nuisance caused by installations which have been officially authorised in the Member State where the action is brought - Authorisations issued in other Member States not taken into account - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality under the EAEC Treaty)

2009/C 312/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Oberösterreich

Defendant: ČEZ as

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Linz (Austria) — Interpretation of the principles of free movement of goods, freedom of establishment, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and fairness — National provision stipulating that only an action for damages may be brought for a nuisance emanating from an officially authorised installation — Restricting application of that provision to authorisations granted by domestic authorities only, with the result that an action for an injunction can be brought for a nuisance emanating from an installation situated in the territory of another Member State — Temelín nuclear power plant

Operative part of the judgment

1. The principle of prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the EAEC Treaty precludes the application of the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an undertaking in possession of the necessary official authorisations for operating a nuclear power plant situated in the territory of another Member State, may be the subject of an action for an injunction to prevent an actual or potential nuisance to neighbouring property emanating from that installation, whereas undertakings having an industrial installation situated in the Member State where the action is brought and in possession of an official authorisation may not be the subject of such an action and may only be the subject of a claim for damages for harm caused to a neighbouring property.

2. It is for the national court to give, in so far as possible, to the domestic legislation which it must apply an interpretation which complies with the requirements of Community law. If such an application in accordance with Community law is not possible, the national court is bound to apply Community law in full and protect the rights it confers on individuals, and to disapply, if necessary, any provision in so far as application thereof, in the circumstances of the case, would lead to a result which is contrary to Community law.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-505/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 51/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the specified time-limit, the necessary provisions to comply with 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)

Operative part of the judgment

1. By failing to adopt and communicate to the European Commission all the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-460/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 39 EC - Employment in the public service - Captain and officer (chief mate) on vessels - Conferment of powers of public authority on board - Requirement that they must be nationals of the Member State whose flag the vessels are flying)

2010/C 24/20

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 39 of the EC Treaty — National legislation which reserves for Greek nationals access to the posts of captain and officer (chief mate) on all commercial and fishing vessels flying the Greek flag

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that in requiring in its legislation Greek nationality for access to the posts of captain and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the Greek flag, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and, in particular, under Article 39 EC.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008
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 Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-373/08) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 24 - Non-preferential origin of goods - Origin-conferring processing or working - Silicon blocks originating in China - Separation, crushing and purification of the blocks and the sieving, sorting by size and packaging of the grains in India - Dumping - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 398/2004)

2010/C 80/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 15) — Meaning of ‘substantial processing or working’ conferring origin on a product — Cleaning and crushing of silicon metal blocks originating in China and sorting, separating and packaging of the silicon grains thus obtained

Operative part of the judgment

1. The separation, crushing and purification of silicon metal blocks and the subsequent sieving, sorting and packaging of the silicon grains resulting from the crushing, as carried out in the main proceedings, do not constitute origin-conferring processing or working for the purposes of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.

2. The examination of the second question raised by the referring court has not revealed any factors of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano

(Case C-384/08) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Regional legislation laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations - Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Restriction)

2010/C 113/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Attanasio Group Srl

Defendant: Comune di Carbognano

Intervening party: Felgas Petroli Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) — Compatibility of national provisions laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside petrol stations with Articles 43, 48, 49 and 56 EC and the principles of non-discrimination.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that domestic provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which lay down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations, constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment enshrined in the EC Treaty. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that restriction does not appear to be justified by the objectives of road safety, protection of health and the environment, or the rationalisation of the service provided to users, these being matters for the national court to verify.

(1) OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.