ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH

(Case C-511/08) (1)

(Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Right of withdrawal - Consumer charged with the cost of delivering the goods)

2010/C 148/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV

Defendant: Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(1), second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — National legislation which allows the costs of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer if he withdraws from the contract

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1), first subparagraph, second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the context of a distance contract, requires the cost of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer after he exercises his right of withdrawal.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni, trekking.at Reisen GmbH

(Case C-278/08) (1)

(Trade marks - Internet - Keyword advertising - Display, on the basis of keywords which are identical with or similar to trade marks, of links to sites of competitors of the proprietors of those trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1))

2010/C 134/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH

Defendants: Günter Guni, trekking.at Reisen GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Reservation of a sign similar or identical to a trade mark with an internet search engine operator in order that, once that sign has been entered as a search term, advertising for products or services identical or similar to those for which the trade mark in question was registered appears automatically on the screen (‘keyword advertising’) — Classification of that utilisation of the trade mark as a use which its proprietor is entitled to prevent

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with or similar to that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of that proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertising does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or by an undertaking which is economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-308/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Protection arrangements before a habitat is placed on the list of sites of Community importance - Article 12(4) - Project for upgrading a country road)

2010/C 179/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice on 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and on 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and the obligations stemming from Article 12(4) of that directive — Project for improvement of the rural path from Villamanrique de la Condesa (Seville) to El Rocio (Huelva)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

(Case C-393/08) (1)

(National legislation governing opening times and closing days of pharmacies - Exemption - Power of decision of the competent authorities)

2010/C 234/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emanuela Sbarigia

Defendants: Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio– Interpretation of Arts 49, 81 to 86, 152 and 153 EC — National legislation governing the opening hours and rota arrangements for pharmacies — Pharmacists forbidden to decline annual holiday closure or to remain open beyond the maximum limits set for opening hours

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio, made by decision of 21 May 2008, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
2.

If the services of stem cell banks such as those at issue in the main proceedings are performed by professional medical personnel, where such stem cell banks, although authorised by the competent health authorities of a Member State, within the framework of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissue and cells, to handle human tissue and cells, do not receive any support from the public social security scheme and where the payment for those services is not covered by that scheme, Article 13A(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 does not preclude the national authorities from deciding that taxable persons such as CopyGene A/S are not ‘other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature’ to ‘hospitals [and] centres for medical care or diagnosis’ within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388. However, neither can that provision be interpreted as requiring, as such, the competent authorities to refuse to treat a private stem cell bank as an establishment ‘duly recognised’ for the purposes of the exemption in question. To the extent that it is necessary, it is for the referring court to determine whether the refusal of recognition for the purposes of the exemption provided for in Article 13A(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 complies with European Union law and, in particular, with the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Ernst Engelmann

(Case C-64/08) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - National rules establishing a system of concessions for the operation of games of chance in casinos - Concessions obtainable solely by public limited companies established in national territory - All concessions granted without any competitive procedure)

(2010/C 288/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Linz

Party in the main proceedings

Ernst Engelmann

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Linz — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal sanctions, the operation of games of chance in casinos without a concession granted by the competent authority, but restricting the possibility of obtaining such a concession, of a maximum duration of 15 years, to public limited companies established in national territory which do not have any branches abroad

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 43 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which games of chance may be operated in gaming establishments only by operators whose seat is in the territory of that Member State.

2. The obligation of transparency flowing from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and from the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality precludes the grant without any competitive procedure of all the concessions to operate gaming establishments in the territory of a Member State.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-526/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Non bis in idem - Res judicata - Articles 226 EC and 228 EC - Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure - Language of the case - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Non-compliance of national measures with the rules relating to the periods, conditions and techniques of land application of fertiliser - Minimum storage capacity for liquid manure - Prohibition on land application on steeply sloping ground - Techniques ensuring a uniform and effective land application of fertiliser)

2010/C 234/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, N. von Lingen and B. Smulders, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and properly with Articles 4 and 5, in conjunction with Annex II A(1) and Annex III 1(1), Annex II A(5) and Annex III 1(2), Annex II A(2) and Annex II A(6) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) — Procedures, conditions and periods of land application of fertilisers — Minimum manure storage capacity — Prohibition of land application on steeply sloping grounds — Techniques for ensuring uniform and efficient land application of fertilisers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, in conjunction with Annex II A(1), (2), (5) and (6), and Annex III(1)(1) and (2) thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/15

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

(Case C-8/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/17/EC - Technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 282/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, 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 69, 21.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/15

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-22/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy policy - Energy savings - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed time-limit)

2010/C 63/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and L. de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions 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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), or failure to notify them to the Commission, within the prescribed time-limit

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 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 82 of 4.04.2009.
1.

Commission Decision SG (95) D/15975 of 11 December 1995 relating to Regional Law No 27 of the Region of Sicily of 15 May 1991 providing for measures to promote employment (State aid NN 91/A/95) must be interpreted as having accepted, as being compatible with the common market, an aid scheme composed of two measures provided for in Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of abovementioned Regional Law No 27, which cannot be cumulative and the event giving rise to which, that is to say, the recruitment of a worker or the conversion of the contract into an open-ended contract, must have taken place before 31 December 1996, but the payments to which they give rise may be made after that date, on condition that the applicable national budgetary and financial rules do not preclude that and that the budgetary provision approved by the Commission of the European Communities is not exceeded;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/11

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-282/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Refusal to register - Overall assessment with regard to the goods and services referred to in the application for registration - Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

2010/C 148/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (represented by: P. Greffe and L. Paudrat, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 in Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July and 12 September 2007, dismissing its actions against the examiner’s refusal to register as trade marks of the word signs PAYWEB CARD and P@YWEB CARD for the goods and services within Classes 9, 36 and 38 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Need for a separate examination of each of the grounds of refusal to register set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation — The requirement of reasons for the refusal to register with regard to each of the goods and services referred to in the application for registration — Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Terre wallonne ASBL (C-105/09), Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL (C-110/09) v Région wallonne

(Joined Cases C-105/09 and C-110/09) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Action programmes in respect of vulnerable zones)

2010/C 221/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Terre wallonne ASBL (C-105/09), Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL (C-110/09)

Defendant: Région wallonne

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and Art 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Drawing up of management plans relating to designated vulnerable zones — Nature and scope of the obligation — Necessary assessment of the impact of the nitrogen management plan on the environment

Operative part of the judgment

An action programme adopted pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources is in principle a plan or programme covered by Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment since it constitutes a ‘plan’ or ‘programme’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the latter directive and contains measures compliance with which is a requirement for issue of the consent that may be granted for carrying out projects listed in Annexes I and II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997.

(1) OJ C 129, 06.06.2009.
1.

Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-363/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/444/EEC - Plant protection products - Application for authorisation to place on the market - Data protection)

2010/C 234/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — Data accompanying the application — Data use and protection — Confidentiality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by maintaining in force Article 38 of Ley 43/2002 de sanidad vegetal (Law 43/2002 on plant health) of 20 November 2002, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market;

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

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.