ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-70/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/72/EC - Statute for a European Cooperative Society - Involvement of employees in the decision-making of the society - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 301/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/22

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-273/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/81/EC - Atmospheric pollutants - Failure to communicate programmes for the reduction of emissions, national emission inventories and annual projections for the year 2010)

(2009/C 44/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up and communicate, within the prescribed time-limits, the documents provided for in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, within the prescribed time-limit, the programmes, inventories and annual projections for the year 2010 relating to the progressive reduction of its emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants;

2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/19

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-401/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Article 11(1)(c) - Drawing up of external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 141/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Reidl, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) — Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishments

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up an external emergency plan for all establishments subject to the provisions of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazard sinvolving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that Directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-331/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environmental liability - Directive 2004/35/EC - Prevention and remedying of environmental damage)

2009/C 113/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and U. Wölker, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
2.

Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1593/91, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets, signed in Geneva on 14 November 1975, must be interpreted as determining only the period within which proof is to be furnished of the regularity of the transport operation, and not the period within which proof must be provided as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed. It is for the national court to determine, according to the principles of national law on evidence, whether, in the specific case before it and in the light of all the circumstances, that proof was furnished within the period prescribed. However, the national court must determine that period in compliance with Community law and, in particular, must take account of the fact, first, that the period must not be so long as to make it legally and materially impossible to recover the amounts due in another Member State, and, second, that that period must not make it materially impossible for the TIR carnet holder to furnish that proof.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-556/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 205/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/23

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-546/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 180/39

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and M. Sundén, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, 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 Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(1) of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België -Belgium) — Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV v Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh and Firma De Vos NV; Belgische Staat v Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV; and Louis De Vos v Belgische Staat

(Case C-126/08) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duty - Entry in the accounts of the amount of duty - Entry in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium - Act of recording equivalent to entry in the accounts - Delivery of a copy of the record equivalent to communication of the amount of duty legally owed)

2009/C 220/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV, Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos

Respondents: Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh, Firma De Vos NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 217(1) and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (version in force in 1992) (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Whether or not the amount of the duty owed must be entered in the accounts before being communicated to the person liable for payment — ‘[Entry] in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 217 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that Member States can provide that the entry in the accounts of the amount of duty resulting from a customs debt may be effected by the entry of that amount on a record which is drawn up by the competent customs authorities and establishes an infringement of the applicable customs legislation.

(1) OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation

(Case C-204/08) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1)(a) - Montreal Convention - Article 33(1) - Air transport - Passenger claims for compensation against airlines in the case of flight cancellation - Place of performance of the service - Jurisdiction in the case of air transport from one Member State to another Member State by an airline established in a third Member State)

2009/C 205/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Rehder

Defendant: Air Baltic Corporation

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 5(1)(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) — Compensation under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 claimed by a passenger residing in a Member State from an air carrier established in another Member State following cancellation of a flight between the first Member State and a third member State — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the passenger resides — Determination of ‘the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’.

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 5(1)(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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of air transport of passengers from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with only one airline, which is the operating carrier, the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation founded on that transport contract and on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, is that, at the applicant’s choice, which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are agreed in that contract.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/21

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-286/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directives 2006/12/EC and 91/689/EEC - Hazardous waste - Obligation to draw up and adopt a hazardous-waste management plan - Obligation to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Disposal of hazardous waste)

2009/C 267/36

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and Articles 5(1) and (2), 7(1), 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) (formerly Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991) — Breach of Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Failure to draw up a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the Community legislation and to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste — Failure to fulfil obligations so far as concerns the management and landfill of waste.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by failing to draw up and adopt within a reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste characterised by the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health, and

2. by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste, compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste and Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, read in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and 7(1) of Directive 2006/12, second, Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689, read in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12, and, third, Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31.

3. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Amministrazione dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl

(Case C-2/08) (1)

(VAT - Primacy of Community law - Provision of national law laying down the principle of res judicata)

2009/C 256/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Amministrazione dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — Primacy of Community law — Provision of national law laying down the principle of res judicata leading to a result which is incompatible with Community VAT law

Operative part of the judgment

Community law precludes the application, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, of a provision of national law, such as Article 2909 of the Italian Civil Code, in a dispute concerning value added tax and relating to a tax year for which no final judicial decision has yet been delivered, to the extent that it would prevent the national court seised of that dispute from taking into consideration the rules of Community law concerning abusive practice in the field of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria)) — SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten v Finanzamt Klagenfurt

(Case C-267/08) (1)

(VAT - Entitlement to deduct input tax - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Regional groups of a political party - Advertising activities benefiting the party’s local groups - Expenditure relating to those activities exceeding income)

2009/C 282/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten

Defendant: Finanzamt Klagenfurt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (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) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Organisation by the provincial organisation of a political party of promotional activities for the benefit of the district organisations of that party, taking the form of events, the production and delivery of publicity material and the organisation of an annual ball — Expenses related to these activities considerably exceeding the revenue derived from passing on the expense of some of those activities to the district organisations and from the sale of the tickets for the ball

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that, external advertising activities carried out by a section of a Member State’s political party is not to be regarded as an economic activity.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-477/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 282/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

2. orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.