ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy)) — Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07) v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen)

(Joined Cases C-55/07 and C-56/07) (1)

(Directive 97/81/EC - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Discrimination - Administrative obstacle limiting opportunities for part-time work)

(2008/C 142/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Bozen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07)

Defendant: Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Bolzano — Interpretation of Community law and, in particular, Article 137 EC and Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — National legislation requiring employers to send a copy of part-time employment contracts to the competent national authorities, which imposes a fine for failure to do so — Obligation of the Member States to eliminate legal and administrative obstacles which may limit the opportunities for part-time work — Principle of equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which requires that copies of part-time employment contracts be sent to the authorities within 30 days of their signature.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece) — Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-49/07) (1)

(Articles 82 EC and 86 EC - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Non-profit-making association representing, in Greece, the International Motorcycling Federation - Concept of ‘economic activity’ - Special legal right to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise motorcycling events - Exercise in parallel of activities such as the organisation of motorcycling events and the conclusion of sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts)

(2008/C 209/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE)

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Non-profit-making automobile association (ELPA) representing the Fédération internationale de motocyclisme (the International Motorcycling Federation) in Greece and having the exclusive right to authorise events in the field of motor sport — Association engaging, in parallel, in economic activities such as advertising, the conclusion of sponsorship agreements and the financing of prizes

Operative part of the judgment

A legal person whose activities consist not only in taking part in administrative decisions authorising the organisation of motorcycling events, but also in organising such events itself and in entering, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, falls within the scope of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC. Those articles preclude a national rule which confers on a legal person, which organises motorcycling competitions and enters, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise such competitions, without that power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gießen — Germany) — Hakan Er v Wetteraukreis

(Case C-453/07) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 7, first paragraph, second indent - Right of residence of the adult child of a Turkish worker - Absence of paid employment - Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights)

(2008/C 301/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gießen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hakan Er

Defendant: Wetteraukreis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Gießen — Interpretation of the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association and of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol on the transitional phase laid down under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (JO 1972 L 293, p. 1) — Right of residence of a Turkish national who entered the territory of a Member State as a minor for the purpose of family reunification — Loss of the right of residence — No lawful pursuit of an economic activity after the party in question attained majority

Operative part of the judgment

A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member State as a child in the context of a family reunion, and who has acquired the right to take up freely any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not lose the right of residence in that State, which is the corollary of that right of free access, even though, at the age of 23, he has not been in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16 and has taken part in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.

(1) OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-237/07) (1)

(Directive 96/62/EC - Ambient air quality assessment and management - Fixing of limit values - Entitlement of a third party, whose health has been impaired, to have an action plan drawn up)

(2008/C 236/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dieter Janecek

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55) — Entitlement of a third party whose health is impaired to have an action plan drawn up as provided for by the Directive, where that third party is entitled under national law to bring legal proceedings for measures to prevent the value limits of particulate matter being exceeded

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded, persons directly concerned must be in a position to require the competent national authorities to draw up an action plan, even though, under national law, those persons may have other courses of action available to them for requiring those authorities to take measures to combat atmospheric pollution.

2) The Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, only to take such measures — in the context of an action plan and in the short term — as are capable of reducing to a minimum the risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those values or thresholds, taking into account the factual circumstances and all opposing interests.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-405/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 95(5) EC - Directive 98/69/EC - Measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles - Derogating national provision advancing the lowering of the Community limit on emissions of particulate matter produced by certain new diesel-powered vehicles - Commission's refusal - Specificity of the problem - Duties of care and to state reasons)

(2008/C 327/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: D.J.M. de Grave and C.M. Wissels, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, H. van Vliet and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 27 June 2007 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-182/06 Netherlands v Commission, by which it dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) EC laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles (OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of 27 June 2007 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission (T-182/06);

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) EC laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH

(Case C-157/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - European Economic Area Agreement (EEA) - Tax legislation - Tax treatment of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State of the EEA and belonging to a company having its seat in a Member State of the European Union)

(2008/C 313/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin

Defendant: Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1) — Double taxation convention which provides for taxation of profits made by a branch office in the State where it is established — Deduction from taxable profit of company principal office of branch office losses — No possibility for branch office to carry over fiscal losses to a subsequent period of assessment — Reintegration by State where company principal office established of total deducted losses of branch office

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 does not preclude a national tax system which, after having allowed the taking into account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a State other than the one in which its principal company is situated, for the purposes of calculating the tax on that company's income, provides for a tax reintegration of those losses at the time when that permanent establishment makes profits, where the State where that same permanent establishment is situated does not confer any right to carry forward losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to a company established in another State, and where, under a convention for the prevention of double taxation between the two States concerned, the income of such an entity is exonerated from taxation in the State in which the principal company has its seat.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lahti Energia Oy

(Case C-317/07) (1)

(Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Purification and combustion - Crude gas produced from waste - Definition of waste - Incineration plant - Co-incineration plant)

(2009/C 19/08)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties in the main proceedings

Lahti Energia Oy

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 3(1), (4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91) — Purification and combustion in a boiler of a power plant — Concept of waste — Concepts of incineration plant and co-incineration plant

Operative part of the judgment

1) The definition of ‘waste’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste does not cover gaseous substances;

2) The definition of ‘incineration plant’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/76 relates to any technical unit and equipment in which waste is thermally treated, on condition that the substances resulting from the use of the thermal treatment process are subsequently incinerated and that, in that connection, the presence of an incineration line is not a necessary condition for the purposes of such classification;

3) In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings: — a gas plant whose objective is to obtain products in gaseous form, in this case purified gas, by thermally treating waste must be classified as a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/76; — a power plant which uses as an additional fuel, in substitution for fossil fuels used for the most part in its production activities, a purified gas obtained by the co-incineration of waste in a gas plant does not fall within the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-227/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) - Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) - Incorrect transposition)

(2009/C 6/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, T. Nowakowski, and subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7) — National legislation on telecommunications requiring, by way of a general legal provision, operators of public telecommunications networks to negotiate in good faith access contracts and providing that, if the parties do not reach an agreement, the regulatory authority may, at the request of one of the parties, adopt a decision which will replace the contract

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/18

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-480/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/59/EC - Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues - Failure to have developed, implemented or approved waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

(2009/C 44/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) and Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81) — Failure to have developed and/or implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports under the jurisdiction of the ‘Comunidades Autónomas’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to develop, implement and approve waste reception and handling plans for all Spanish ports, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) and Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

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

(1) OJ C 315 of 22.12.2007.
1)

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a copyright management organisation with a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market does not abuse that position where, with respect to remuneration paid for the television broadcast of musical works protected by copyright, it applies to commercial television channels a remuneration model according to which the amount of the royalties corresponds partly to the revenue of those channels, provided that that part is proportionate overall to the quantity of musical works protected by copyright actually broadcast or likely to be broadcast, unless another method enables the use of those works and the audience to be identified more precisely without however resulting in a disproportionate increase in the costs incurred for the management of contracts and the supervision of the use of those works.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA

(Case C-205/07) (1)

(Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection in distance contracts - Period for withdrawal - Prohibition on requiring from a consumer an advance or payment before the end of the period for withdrawal)

(2009/C 44/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties in the main proceedings

Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC — Effects on intra-community trade of a national rule prohibiting a requirement that a consumer pay an advance or make payment before the expiry of a withdrawal period — Compatibility with Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 29 EC does not preclude national rules which prohibit a supplier in cross-border distance selling from requiring an advance or any payment from a consumer before expiry of the withdrawal period, but Article 29 EC does preclude a prohibition, under those rules, on requesting, before expiry of that period, the number of the consumer's payment card.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
1)

Article 3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is to be interpreted as meaning that an activity in which data on the earned and unearned income and the assets of natural persons are: — collected from documents in the public domain held by the tax authorities and processed for publication, — published alphabetically in printed form by income bracket and municipality in the form of comprehensive lists, — transferred onward on CD-ROM to be used for commercial purposes, and — processed for the purposes of a text-messaging service whereby mobile telephone users can, by sending a text message containing details of an individual's name and municipality of residence to a given number, receive in reply information concerning the earned and unearned income and assets of that person, must be considered as the ‘processing of personal data’ within the meaning of that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium NV

(Case C-339/07) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Court with jurisdiction)

(2009/C 82/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH

Defendant: Deko Marty Belgium NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and 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) — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor's main interests is situated in respect of judgments deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings and which are closely linked with them — Action (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) for reimbursement of a payment by the debtor to a company whose registered office is in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose registered office is in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.