ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that the Italian Republic has failed, in relation to the refund of value added tax to a taxable person residing in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned, to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, and Article 1 of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, by requiring a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in Italy and who, during the period at issue, supplied goods and services in Italy, to apply for a refund of input value added tax according to the mechanism provided by those directives rather than deduct it where the purchase in respect of which repayment of that tax is sought is made not through that fixed establishment, but directly by the principal establishment of that taxable person;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Alicante y no 1 de Marca Comunitaria — Spain) — Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL, Acierta Product Position SA

(Case C-32/08) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Articles 14 and 88 - Proprietor of the right to the Community design - Unregistered design - Commissioned design)

2009/C 205/11

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Alicante y no 1 de Marca Comunitaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA)

Defendants: Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL, Acierta Product Position SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Alicante y no 1 de Marca Comunitaria — Interpretation of Articles 14(1) and (3) and 88(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — Proprietor of the rights — Right vesting in the employer or in the employed designer — Definitions

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs does not apply to Community designs that have been produced as a result of a commission.

2. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigned by way of contract to his successor in title.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland)) — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy

(Case C-44/08) (1)

(Preliminary ruling procedure - Directive 98/59/EC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies - Article 2 - Protection of workers - Informing and consulting with workers - Group of undertakings - Parent company - Subsidiary)

2009/C 267/26

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others

Defendant: Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Determination of the time when an obligation arises on the part of a subsidiary to begin consultations with the representatives of its staff — Plans or decisions adopted within a group of undertakings concerning a change in the activities of one of the subsidiaries of that group

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted to mean that the adoption, within a group of undertakings, of strategic decisions or of changes in activities which compel the employer to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies gives rise to an obligation on that employer to hold consultations with workers’ representatives.

2. Whether the obligation has arisen for the employer to start consultations on the collective redundancies contemplated does not depend on whether the employer is already able to supply to the workers’ representatives all the information required in Article 2(3)(b) of Directive 98/59.

3. Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of that directive, must be interpreted to mean that, in the case of a group of undertakings consisting of a parent company and one or more subsidiaries, the obligation to hold consultations with the workers’ representatives falls on the subsidiary which has the status of employer only once that subsidiary, within which collective redundancies may be made, has been identified.

4. Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of that directive, must be interpreted to mean that, in the case of a group of undertakings, the consultation procedure must be concluded by the subsidiary affected by the collective redundancies before that subsidiary, on the direct instructions of its parent company or otherwise, terminates the contracts of employees who are to be affected by those redundancies.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-527/08) (1)

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

2009/C 256/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary 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 period prescribed 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 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-219/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Unjustified obstacle - Posting of workers who are nationals of non-member States)

2009/C 282/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa, J.-P. Keppenne and G. Rozet, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent, and M. Detry, avocat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Unjustified obstacle to the free provision of services — Posting of workers who are nationals of third countries

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Belgium each to bear its own costs..

(1) OJ C 183, 19.07.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-153/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Income tax - Tax exemption restricted to winnings from lotteries and games of chance organised by certain national bodies and entities)

2009/C 282/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC and Article 36 EEA — National legislation under which amounts won in lotteries and games of chance organised abroad, but not in certain lotteries or games of chance organised in Spain, are subject to income tax.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force fiscal legislation which exempts winnings from lotteries, games of chance and betting organised in the Kingdom of Spain by certain public bodies and entities established in that Member State and pursuing social or charitable non-profit-making activities, without that same exemption being granted to winnings from lotteries, games of chance and betting organised by bodies and entities established in another Member State of the European Union or European Economic Area and pursuing the same type of activities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-275/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/36/EEC - Public supply contracts - Supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice)

2009/C 297/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and D. Kukovec, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 6, in conjunction with Article 9, of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) — Contract for the supply of a software application designed for motor vehicle registration concluded without contracting procedures between two bodies governed by public law responsible for data-processing on behalf of local authorities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by reason of the fact that the Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg (Central Data Office of Baden-Württemberg) awarded a contract for the supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration by a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts;

2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (references for preliminary rulings from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia (Spain)) — María Julia Zurita García (C-261/08), Aurelio Choque Cabrera (C-348/08) v Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia

(Joined Cases C-261/08 and C-348/08) (1)

(Visas, asylum and immigration - Measures concerning the crossing of external borders - Article 62(1) and (2)(a) EC - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 6b and 23 - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Articles 5, 11 and 13 - Presumption concerning the duration of the stay - Unlawful presence of third-country nationals in the territory of a Member State - National legislation allowing for either a fine or expulsion, depending on the circumstances)

2009/C 297/11

Language of the cases: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: María Julia Zurita García (C-261/08), Aurelio Choque Cabrera (C-348/08)

Respondent: Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia — Interpretation of Article 62(1) and (2)(a) EC and Articles 5, 11 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — National rules allowing the penalty of expulsion to be replaced by the payment of a fine

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6b and 23 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2133/2004 of 13 December 2004 on the requirement for the competent authorities of the Member States to stamp systematically the travel documents of third-country nationals when they cross the external borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement and the common manual to this end, and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national is unlawfully present on the territory of a Member State because he or she does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the conditions of duration of stay applicable there, that Member State is not obliged to adopt a decision to expel that person.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and keeping in force Articles 73 and 74-IV of the Public Procurement Code, adopted by Decree No 2006-975 of 1 August 2006, inasmuch as those provisions lay down a procedure for the award of marchés de definition (public contracts for designing the parameters, including the purpose, of a public works, supply or service contract) under which it is possible for the contracting authority to award a marché d’exécution (a public works, supply or service contract) to one of the holders of the initial marchés de définition by opening it to competition limited to those holders, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-474/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity - Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector)

2009/C 312/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, acting as Agent, and J. Scalais and O. Vanhulst, avocats)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that — by failing to provide that cases of refusal of access to the electricity distribution or transmission systems may be submitted to the regulatory authority which must then issue a binding decision within a period of two months, in accordance with the provisions of Article 23(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, and — by attributing to an authority other than the regulatory authority the power to define criteria which are decisive for the calculation of tariffs as regards certain electricity transmission installations, contrary to the provisions of Article 23(2)(a) of Directive 2003/54, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 32, 07.02.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa) v Regione Marche

(Case C-305/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18 - Concepts of ‘contractor’, ‘supplier’ and ‘service provider’ - Concept of ‘economic operator’ - Universities and research institutes - Group (‘consorzio’) of universities and public authorities - Where the primary object under the statutes is non-profit-making - Admission to a procedure for the award of a public contract)

2010/C 51/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa)

Defendant: Regione Marche

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Exclusion of non-profit-making entities whose objects include research, such as universities, from a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract for the acquisition of geophysical data

Operative part of the judgment

1. The provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular those in Article 1(2)(a) and (8), first and second subparagraphs, which refer to the concept of ‘economic operator’, must be interpreted as permitting entities which are primarily non-profit-making and do not have the organisational structure of an undertaking or a regular presence on the market — such as universities and research institutes and consortia made up of universities and public authorities — to take part in a public tendering procedure for the award of a service contract.

2. Directive 2004/18 must be construed as precluding an interpretation of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits entities, such as universities and research institutes, which are primarily non-profit-making from taking part in a procedure for the award of a public contract, even though such entities are entitled under national law to offer the services covered by the contract in question.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.09.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Yaesu Europe BV v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-433/08) (1)

(Eighth VAT Directive - Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Annex A - Application for a refund - Meaning of ‘signature’ of that application - National legislation requiring the personal signature of the taxable person, or of the statutory representative of that person, and ruling out signature by an agent)

2010/C 24/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yaesu Europe BV

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of the specimen application in Annex A to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — ‘Signature’ as referred to in the model application for a refund — National legislation requiring the personal signature of the applicant, or of the applicant’s statutory representative, and ruling out signature by an agent

Operative part of the judgment

‘Signature’ of an application for a refund of value added tax, as referred to in the specimen form set out in Annex A to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, is a Community law notion which must be interpreted uniformly to the effect that such a refund application need not necessarily be signed by the taxable person in person and that the signature of an agent may be sufficient for those purposes.

(1) OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.