ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni

(Case C-296/06) (1)

(Telecommunications services - Directive 97/13/EC - Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 - Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences - Obligation on former holders of exclusive rights - Temporary continuation)

(2008/C 92/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Whether it is possible to impose fees and charges other than those permitted by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge such as the charge in the main proceedings, corresponding to the amount previously demanded for that exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-265/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Motor vehicles - Affixing of tinted film to windows)

(2008/C 128/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros, P. Guerra e Andrade and M. Patakia, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent, and by A. Duarte de Almeida, lawyer)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation prohibiting the affixing of tinted film to the windows of passenger or goods vehicles

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by prohibiting in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 of 11 March 2003 the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

2) Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
1.

In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred. If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. On the other hand, if the place where the offence or irregularity was committed cannot be thus established, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover the customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Republic of Poland) — Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie

(Case C-499/06) (1)

(Disability pension granted to civilian victims of war or repression - Condition requiring residence in national territory - Article 18(1) EC)

(2008/C 171/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Halina Nerkowska

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Compatibility of a national provision under which payment of a benefit granted to victims of war and of its consequences is subject to a requirement of residence in national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
1.

National rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, comprising figures for the animal compartment height in order that transporters may refer to more precise standards than those set out in Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, may fall within the margin of discretion conferred on the Member States by Article 249 EC, on condition that those rules, which comply with the objective pursued by that directive, as amended, of protecting animals during transport do not, contrary to the principle of proportionality, prevent attainment of the objectives, also pursued by that directive, as amended, of eliminating technical barriers to trade in live animals and allowing market organisations to operate smoothly. It is for the national court to establish whether those rules comply with those principles.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — L & D SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Julius Sämann Ltd

(Case C-488/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and 73 - Figurative mark ‘Aire Limpio’ - Community, national and international figurative marks representing a fir tree with various names - Opposition by the proprietor - Partial refusal to register - Inference of the particularly distinctive character of the earlier mark from evidence relating to another mark)

(2008/C 223/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: L & D SA (represented by: S. Miralles Miravet, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent), Julius Sämann Ltd (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2006 in Case T-168/04 L & D SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Julius Sämann Ltd, by which the Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2004 (Case R 326/2003-2) in respect of opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann Ltd and L&D SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders L & D SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg, Germany) — Proceedings brought by Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul

(Case C-353/06) (1)

(Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Private international law relating to surnames - Applicable law determined by nationality alone - Minor child born and resident in one Member State with the nationality of another Member State - Non-recognition in the Member State of which he is a national of the surname acquired in the Member State of birth and residence)

(2008/C 313/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Flensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul

Other parties: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul, Standesamt Niebüll,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Flensburg (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 18 of the EC Treaty — National rule on conflict of laws connecting the law governing the determination of a person's surname to nationality alone — Refusal by the Member State of which he is a national to recognise the surname of a child, made up of the respective surnames of his parents, where the child was born and is resident in another Member State in which he has been registered under that double-barrelled name

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, Article 18 EC precludes the authorities of a Member State, in applying national law, from refusing to recognise a child's surname, as determined and registered in a second Member State in which the child — who, like his parents, has only the nationality of the first Member State — was born and has been resident since birth.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.
1)

An exclusive supply contract for motor-vehicle and other fuels, as well as lubricants and other related products, is capable of falling within the scope of Article 81(1) EC where the service station operator assumes, in a non-negligible proportion, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of those products to third parties and where that contract contains clauses capable of infringing competition, such as that relating to the fixing of the retail price. If the service-station operator does not assume such risks or assumes only a negligible share of them, only the obligations imposed on the operator in the context of services as an intermediary offered by the operator to the principal, such as the exclusivity and non-competition clauses, are capable of falling within the scope of that provision. It is for the referring court to ascertain, moreover, whether the contract concluded on 7 February 1996 between CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA and LV Tobar e Hijos SL has the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-510/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate market - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Community competition policy - Equal treatment - Turnover to be taken into account - Attenuating circumstances)

2009/C 113/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: M. Garcia, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-329/01 Archer Daniels Midland Co. v Commission, by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of Commission Decision C(2001)2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
1)

A system for processing personal data relating to Union citizens who are not nationals of the Member State concerned, such as that put in place by the Law on the central register of foreign nationals (Gesetz über das Ausländerzentralregister) of 2 September 1994, as amended by the Law of 21 June 2005, and having as its object the provision of support to the national authorities responsible for the application of the law relating to the right of residence does not satisfy the requirement of necessity laid down by Article 7(e) 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, interpreted in the light of the prohibition on any discrimination on grounds of nationality, unless: — it contains only the data which are necessary for the application by those authorities of that legislation, and — its centralised nature enables the legislation relating to the right of residence to be more effectively applied as regards Union citizens who are not nationals of that Member State. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings. The storage and processing of personal data containing individualised personal information in a register such as the Central Register of Foreign Nationals for statistical purposes cannot, on any basis, be considered to be necessary within the meaning of Article 7(e) of Directive 95/46.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

(Case C-409/06) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Organisation of bets on sporting competitions subject to a public monopoly at Land level - Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht finding the legislation for such a monopoly incompatible with the German Basic Law, but maintaining the legislation in force during a transitional period designed to allow it to be brought into conformity with the Basic Law - Principle of the primacy of Union law - Admissibility of, and possible conditions for, a transitional period of that type where the national legislation concerned also infringes Articles 43 EC and 49 EC)

(2010/C 288/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Interpretation of Arts 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation, making the business of collecting, accepting, registering and transmitting bets subject to obtaining authorisation, declared unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Direct effect and primacy of Community law — Temporal limitation on the effects of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

By reason of the primacy of directly-applicable Union law, national legislation concerning a public monopoly on bets on sporting competitions which, according to the findings of a national court, comprises restrictions that are incompatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, because those restrictions do not contribute to limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner, cannot continue to apply during a transitional period.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-480/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - No formal European tendering procedure for the award of waste treatment services - Cooperation between local authorities)

2009/C 180/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 8 in conjunction with Titles III, IV, V and VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Failure to organise a formal European award procedure for the award of waste disposal services by four local authorities (Landkreise) to a public body

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 20, 27.01.2007.
1.

Declares that by not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/16

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-112/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/80/EC - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Compensation to crime victims - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 22/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avocat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission

(Case C-17/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff cases - Temporary staff - Contract staff - Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) - Recruitment procedure - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 107/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Wineke Neirinck (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v Commission dismissing the application of the appellant seeking (i) annulment of the Commission's decisions rejecting her candidature for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) and appointing another applicant to that post and (ii) award of damages — Concept of interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Misuse of powers — Interests of the service, principle of the administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials and principle of proper administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v Commission in so far as the Court dismissed the plea in law alleging that an infringement of the obligation to state reasons vitiated the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 27 April 2004 informing Mrs Neirinck that she had failed the oral examination within the recruitment procedure for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels, as a member of contract staff;

2. dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

3. annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 27 April 2004 informing Mrs Neirinck that she had failed the oral examination within the recruitment procedure for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels, as a member of contract staff;

4. dismisses the action for the remainder;

5. orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, the entire costs of Mrs Neirinck before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Angel Angelidis v European Parliament

(Case C-103/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Officials - Staff report - Single assessor - Conditions - Consultation of preceding immediate superior - Lack of change in post - Reasoning - Annulment - Damages)

(2008/C 79/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Angel Angelidis (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha Pacha and A. Lukošiūte, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament, in which the Court rejected the applicant's application, first, to annul his staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001 and, second, for compensation for the harm he suffered by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Angelidis to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
1.

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a sandal such as that in question in the main proceedings, with an outer sole of rubber, whose upper is made up of two leather sections glued to the inner sole and linked to each other by leather fastening straps covered with Velcro strips, with the leather making up around 71 % of the upper's external surface area and the elastic textile material underneath the leather remaining exposed in places, falls within: — heading 6404 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, fulfils the purpose of an upper, that is to say, provides sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal; — heading 6403 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, does not fulfil the purpose of an upper, that is to say, does not provide sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal.