ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

(Case C-218/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Article 5(3) - Conditions for granting - Exception - Force majeure - Products which perished in transit)

2010/C 134/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

Defendants: Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) — Conditions for granting export refunds — Exception — Product which has perished in transit for reasons of force majeure.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 of 19 June 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that damage to a consignment of beef in the conditions described by the national court does not constitute force majeure within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, all the measures necessary, within the framework of the management of waste illegally placed in the old quarries of Limas and Linos, situated in the commune of Lourosa, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the terms of Articles 4 and 8 respectively of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste, which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-94/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(1) and (2) - Supply of services by undertakers - Application of a reduced rate to the service involving transportation of a body by vehicle)

2010/C 179/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96 to 99(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Activities of undertakers — Obligation to apply a single rate of tax to an indivisible complex service provided by undertakers — Prohibition on applying variable reduced rates of VAT

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-354/09) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 33 - Value of goods for customs purposes - Inclusion of the customs duties - Delivery term ‘Delivered Duty Paid’)

2010/C 246/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gaston Schul BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Interpretation of Article 33(1)(f) and Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value — Contract containing the term of delivery ‘Delivered Duty Paid’ concluded on the assumption that no customs duties would be payable — Amount not mentioned — Exclusion from or inclusion in the customs value

Operative part of the judgment

The condition specified in Article 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, to the effect that import duties must be ‘shown separately’ from the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, is satisfied in the case where the parties to the contract have agreed that those goods are to be delivered DDP (‘Delivered Duty Paid’) and have incorporated that information in the customs declaration but, by reason of a mistake as to the preferential origin of those goods, have failed to state the amount of the import duties.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
1.

Articles 4(1)(c) and 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from identifying the registration of an instrument recording an increase in the capital of a company as the point at which the chargeable event for capital duty occurs, provided that there remains a connection between the levying of the duty and the actual contribution of assets to the company receiving them. If, at the time when such an instrument is executed, the actual contribution of assets has not been effected and it remains uncertain whether it will be effected, the Member State concerned cannot demand payment of capital duty until the contribution has become definite. The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which restricts, before the tax courts, the means of proving that no contribution was in fact effected to increase the capital of a company, in accordance with the company’s resolution, to the production of a civil judgment that has become final declaring the registration null and void or annulling it, so that capital duty must in any event be paid and can be reimbursed only by means of the production of such a civil judgment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Graz v Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

(Case C-314/09) (1)

(Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - Actions for damages - Unlawful award - National rule on liability based on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault)

2010/C 317/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadt Graz

Defendants: Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

In the presence of: Land Steiermark

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) and (7) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Award of a public contract in accordance with a decision of the appeal court which binds the contracting authority — Unlawfulness of the award of the public contract in consequence of an infringement of national legislation — Necessary conditions for an action for damages and interest — Principle of effectiveness

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the right to damages for an infringement of public procurement law by a contracting authority conditional on that infringement being culpable, including where the application of that legislation rests on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault and on the fact that the latter cannot rely on a lack of individual abilities, hence on the defence that it cannot be held accountable for the alleged infringement.

(1) OJ C 267, 07.11.2009.
1.

First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as Article 4(3) of Law No 2328/1995 ‘Legal regime governing private television and local radio, regulation of issues relating to the broadcasting market and other provisions’, as amended by Law No 2644/1998 ‘on the provision of subscription radio and television services’, according to which the fines provided for in the preceding paragraphs of that article for infringement of the legislation and rules of good conduct governing the operation of television stations are imposed jointly and severally, not only on the company which holds the licence to found and operate the television station but also on all shareholders with a holding of over 2,5 %.
3.

With regard to medical treatment which cannot be given in the Member State on whose territory the insured person resides, the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that that authorisation required under Article 22(1)(c)(i) cannot be refused: — if, where the list of benefits for which the national legislation provides does not expressly and precisely specify the treatment method applied but defines types of treatment reimbursed by the competent institution, it is established, applying the usual principles of interpretation and on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, taking into consideration all the relevant medical factors and the available scientific data, that the treatment method in question corresponds to types of treatment included in that list, and — if no alternative treatment which is equally effective can be given without undue delay in the Member State on whose territory the insured person resides. That article precludes the national bodies called upon to rule on an application for prior authorisation from presuming, in the application of that provision, that the hospital treatment which cannot be given in the Member State on whose territory the insured person resides is not included in the benefits for which reimbursement is provided for by the legislation of that State or, conversely, that the hospital treatment included in those benefits can be given in that Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) v Commission

(Case C-317/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Set-off of claims governed by separate legal orders - Application for repayment of sums advanced - Principle of litis denuntiatio - Rights of the defence and right to a fair hearing)

2011/C 13/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and S. Delaude, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2009 in Joined Cases T-396/05 and T-397/05 ArchiMEDES v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant at first instance seeking, first, annulment of the Commission's decisions to recover certain sums paid under a contract with the applicant and set-off of their reciprocal claims and, second, an order for the Commission to pay the remainder of the balance due under that contract — Non-applicability of the principle of litis denuntiatio — Rejection of the claim that the co-contractors are jointly and severally liable — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Architecture, microclimat, énergies douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ArchiMEDES) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 267, 07.11.09.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of I.B.

(Case C-306/09) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4 - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4(6) - Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence - Article 5 - Guarantees to be provided by the issuing Member State - Article 5(1) - Sentence imposed in absentia - Article 5(3) - Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution - Surrender subject to the condition that the requested person be returned to the Member State of execution - Joint application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) - Compatibility)

2010/C 346/27

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Party to the main proceedings

I.B.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) and of Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant and guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State — Possibility for the executing Member State to make the surrender of a person residing on its territory subject to the condition that that person, after having been heard in the issuing Member State, be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order that may have been imposed on him in the issuing Member State — Particular situation of a person already sentenced in the issuing Member State but under a decision made in absentia against which that person still has a remedy — Possible effect on the decision to be taken by the judicial authorities of the executing Member State, arising from a risk of infringement of the fundamental rights of the person concerned and, in particular, of his right to a private and family life

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing Member State has implemented Articles 5(1) and Article 5(3) of that framework decision in its domestic legal system, the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence imposed in absentia within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the framework decision, may be subject to the condition that the person concerned, a national or resident of the executing Member State, should be returned to the executing State in order, as the case may be, to serve there the sentence passed against him, following a new trial organised in his presence in the issuing Member State.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.9.2009, p. 11.
1.

Declares that, by providing that the adjective ‘pure’ may be added to the sales name of chocolate products which do not contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption and under Article 3(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v European Commission, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon

(Case C-362/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Withdrawal of the decision to take no further action - Conditions governing the lawfulness of withdrawal - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

2011/C 55/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (represented by: S. Pappas, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent), Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 29 June 2009 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission by which the Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by the applicant following the Commission’s withdrawal of the contested decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic — Misinterpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-521/06 P Athinaïki Techniki — Conditions governing the lawfulness of the withdrawal of a Community administrative act — Failure to take administrative action in the context of the State aid investigation procedure not permissible — Principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 June 2009 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
1.

Declares that, — by granting exemption from the tax on the transfer of immovable property, under Article 1(1) and (3), first subparagraph, of Law 1078/1980, solely to persons permanently resident in Greece, whilst non-residents who intend to settle in Greece in the future are not granted exemption from the tax, and — by granting, on certain conditions, exemption from the tax solely to Greek nationals or persons of Greek origin on the purchase of a first residence in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and under Articles 4, 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Austria) — proceedings brought by Robert Koller

(Case C-118/09) (1)

(‘Court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC - Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Lawyer - Entry on the professional roll of a Member State other than that in which the diploma was recognised as equivalent)

2011/C 63/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission

Party to the main proceedings

Robert Koller

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Applicability of the directive in the case of an Austrian national who, on the basis of the confirmation of his Austrian degree as equivalent and of additional study at a Spanish university for less than three years, was registered with a chamber of lawyers in Spain and, after exercising his profession in Spain for three weeks, applies to be admitted to the aptitude test in order to qualify as a lawyer in Austria on the basis of the authorisation to exercise his profession in Spain

Operative part of the judgment

1. With a view to gaining access, subject to passing an aptitude test, to the regulated profession of lawyer in a Member State, the provisions of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 may be relied upon by a person who holds a degree issued in that Member State on completion of a cycle of post-secondary studies lasting more than three years, and who also holds an equivalent degree issued in another Member State after additional training of less than three years and enabling him, in that latter State, to have access to the regulated profession of lawyer, which he was actually practising in the latter State on the date on which he applied for admission to the aptitude test;

2. Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19, must be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of the host Member State from denying to a person in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings authorisation to take the aptitude test for the profession of lawyer without proof of completion of the period of practical experience required by the legislation of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
1.

Since the region of Sardinia has adopted and applies legislation, relating to the authorisation of derogations from the rules for the protection of wild birds, which does not comply with the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

(Case C-552/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community figurative mark TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT - Earlier word mark KINDER - Invalidity proceedings - Article 52(1)(a) - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Assessment of the similarity of the signs - Family of marks)

2011/C 152/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ferrero SpA (represented by: C. Gielen, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2009 in Case T-140/08 Ferrero SpA v OHIM — Tirol Milch, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2008 in Case R 682/2007-2 annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the word mark ‘TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT’ invalid for goods in Class 29 in invalidity proceedings brought by the appellant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ferrero SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.