ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-187/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/40/EC - Air conditioning in motor vehicles - Incomplete transposition)

2010/C 24/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and S. Walker, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to comply with Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ 2006 L 161, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Smit Reizen BV v Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat

(Case C-124/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 - Road transport - Obligation to record - Rest periods and other periods of work - Time spent in travelling to the place where a vehicle fitted with recording equipment is taken over - Meaning of ‘operating centre’)

(2010/C 161/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Smit Reizen BV

Defendant: Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) and of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8) — Breaks from driving, daily rest periods and working time — Meaning — Obligation to record — Time spent in travelling to the place where the vehicle is taken over and which is at a distance from the operating centre of the undertaking — Operating centre — Meaning — Driver brought to the place by a third party

Operative part of the judgment

1. The term ‘operating centre’, in paragraph 21 et seq. of the judgment in Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches and Others must be defined as the place to which the driver is actually attached, namely the transport undertaking facilities from which he usually carries out his service and to which he returns at the end of that service, in the normal exercise of his functions and without complying with specific instructions from his employer.

2. Whether the driver concerned drives himself to the place where he must take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment or whether he is driven to that place by someone else has no bearing on the classification of the travelling time in the light of the concept of ‘rest’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport.

(1) OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-3/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 12(3)(a) - Annexe H - Reduced rate of VAT - Concept of admissions to a cinema - Individual cubicles for watching films on demand)

2010/C 134/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Erotic Center BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Annex H, Category 7 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)(now Annex III, No. 7 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate applicable to certain supplies of goods and services — Cinemas — Meaning — Individual cubicle for viewing films on demand

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of admissions to a cinema referred to in the first paragraph of Category 7 in Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the payment made by a customer so as to be able to watch on his own one or more films, or extracts from films, in private cubicles such as those in issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

(Case C-160/09) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 - Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, of the other part - Most-favoured-nation clause - Direct effect - Excise duty on the import of bananas into Greece)

2010/C 179/20

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part (OJ 1984 L 153, p. 1) — Most-favoured-nation clause — Right of an individual seeking the refund of domestic tax to rely on the agreement in order to demonstrate the tax’s incompatibility with the agreement — Banana import regime

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez

(Case C-256/09) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Provisional, including protective, measures - Recognition and enforcement)

2010/C 246/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bianca Purrucker

Defendant: Guillermo Vallés Pérez

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Chapter 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Application of the recognition and enforcement rules in that regulation to a provisional measure awarding custody of a child to its father and ordering the return of the child, retained by its mother in another Member State, to its father

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions laid down in Article 21 et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, do not apply to provisional measures, relating to rights of custody, falling within the scope of Article 20 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/14

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Afton Chemical Limited v Secretary of State for Transport

(Case C-343/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity - Directive 2009/30/EC - Article 1(8) - Directive 98/70/EC - Article 8a - Atmospheric pollution - Fuels - Use of metallic additives in fuels - Limit for methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) content - Labelling - Impact assessment - Manifest error of assessment - Precautionary principle - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Admissibility)

2010/C 234/20

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Afton Chemical Limited

Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England & Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 88) — Validity with regard to the labelling requirement for fuels which contain metallic additives and with regard to the setting of a limit for methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) — Manifest error of assessment — Infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and legal certainty

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC, in so far as it inserts a new Article 8a(2) and 8a(4) to (6) in Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009
1.

Declares that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — Astra Zeneca UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-40/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) - Concept of the supply of services effected for consideration - Retail vouchers provided by an undertaking to its employees as part of their remuneration)

2010/C 246/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astra Zeneca UK Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 6(2)(b) and 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘a supply of services for consideration’ — Retail vouchers made available to an employee under his or her employment contract, part of their value being charged against that employee’s salary

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of a retail voucher by a company, which acquired that voucher at a price including value added tax, to its employees in exchange for their giving up part of their cash remuneration constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Taous Lassal

(Case C-162/09) (1)

(Reference for preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 16 - Right of permanent residence - Temporal application - Periods completed before the date of transposition)

2010/C 328/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant: Taous Lassal

In the presence of: The Child Poverty Action Group

Re:

Interpretation of Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Citizen of the Union who resided lawfully in the United Kingdom for five years prior to 30 April 2006, the last date for transposition of the directive, and then left the territory for a period of 10 months — Taking into account of the period ending prior to 30 April 2006 for the purposes of entitlement to the grant of a permanent right of residence

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) and (4) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that:

— continuous periods of five years’ residence completed before the date of transposition of Directive 2004/38, namely 30 April 2006, in accordance with earlier European Union law instruments, must be taken into account for the purposes of the acquisition of the right of permanent residence pursuant to Article 16(1) thereof, and

— absences from the host Member State of less than two consecutive years, which occurred before 30 April 2006 but following a continuous period of five years’ legal residence completed before that date do not affect the acquisition of the right of permanent residence pursuant to Article 16(1) thereof.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Gaetano Mantello

(Case C-261/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 3(2) - Ne bis in idem - Concept of the ‘same acts’ - Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant - Final judgment in the issuing Member State - Possession of narcotic drugs - Trafficking in narcotic drugs - Criminal organisation)

2011/C 13/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Party in the main proceedings

Gaetano Mantello

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Principle of ‘ne bis in idem’ at national level — Whether executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution concerning acts some of which have already been subject to final disposal at trial in the issuing Member State — Concept of ‘the same acts’ — Situation in which all the facts on which the European arrest warrant is based were known to the investigating authorities of the issuing Member State at the time of the first criminal proceedings but were not used for tactical reasons relating to the investigation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

For the purposes of the issue and execution of a European arrest warrant, the concept of ‘same acts’ in Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States constitutes an autonomous concept of European Union law.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where, in response to a request for information within the meaning of Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision made by the executing judicial authority, the issuing judicial authority, applying its national law and in compliance with the requirements deriving from the concept of ‘same acts’ as enshrined in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, expressly stated that the earlier judgment delivered under its legal system did not constitute a final judgment covering the acts referred to in the arrest warrant issued by it and therefore did not preclude the criminal proceedings referred to in that arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority has no reason to apply, in connection with such a judgment, the ground for mandatory non-execution provided for in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
2.

Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that: — it is not necessary, for an agricultural area to be considered as allocated to the farmer’s holding, that it be at his disposal against payment on the basis of a lease or another similar type of contract to let; — the allocation of an agricultural area to a holding is not precluded by the fact that the area is placed at the farmer’s disposal free of charge, the farmer being obliged only to take over the contributions to a trade association, for a specific use and for a limited period of time in accordance with the objectives of nature conservation, on condition that the farmer is able to use that area with a degree of autonomy sufficient for his agricultural activities for a period of at least 10 months; and that — it is without prejudice to the allocation of the area in question to the farmer’s holding that the farmer is obliged to carry out certain tasks for a third party in return for payment, provided that the area is also used by the farmer for his own agricultural activities in his name and on his own behalf.
1.

Declares that, since the Veneto Region has adopted and applied legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy 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 55/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09)

(Joined Cases C-300/09 and C-301/09) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Prohibition for Member States to introduce new restrictions on access to the labour market)

2011/C 55/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendants: F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, taken by the Association Council set up under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Standstill rule — Scope — Member States prohibited from introducing new restrictions on access to the labour market — Meaning of ‘new restriction’

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, concerning a national provision on the acquisition of a residence permit by Turkish workers, Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that a tightening of a provision introduced after 1 December 1980, which provided for a relaxation of the provision applicable on 1 December 1980, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that article, even where that tightening does not make the conditions governing the acquisition of that permit more stringent than those which resulted from the provision in force on 1 December 1980, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.