ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Thomas Flaherty (C-373/06 P), Larry Murphy (C-379/06 P), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P) v Ireland, Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Resource conservation measures - Restructuring of the fisheries sector - Requests to increase the tonnage objectives of the multiannual guidance programme ‘MAGP IV’ - Dismissal of application)

(2008/C 142/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Thomas Flaherty (C-373/06 P), Larry Murphy (C-379/06 P), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P) (represented by: D. Barry, Solicitor, and A. Collins SC (C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P), and additionally by P. Gallagher SC (C-379/06 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission annulling Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (notified under document number C(2003) 1113) (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), but dismissing the applications lodged by the appellants as inadmissible — Persons (who are not) individually concerned by the annulled decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission (i) in so far as it dismissed as inadmissible the applications of Mr Flaherty, Mr Murphy and Ocean Trawlers Ltd for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall, and (ii) in so far as it ordered the appellants to bear their own costs;

2. Annuls Decision 2003/245 in so far as it applies to the vessels of Mr Flaherty, Mr Murphy and Ocean Trawlers Ltd;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs incurred by Mr Flaherty, Mr Murphy and Ocean Trawlers Ltd in respect of both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeals.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corporation of America v Commission of the European Communities Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, an international association), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV

(Case C-413/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Sony BMG joint venture - Appeal against the annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Judicial review - Scope - Standard of proof - Role of the statement of objections - Strengthening or creation of a collective dominant position - Statement of reasons for a decision approving a concentration - Use of confidential information)

(2008/C 223/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Bertelsmann AG (represented by: P. Chappatte and J. Boyce, Solicitors), Sony Corporation of America (represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders, avocat, and T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) (represented by: S. Crosby and J. Golding, Solicitors, and by I. Wekstein, Advocate), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, Agent and K. Mojzesowicz, Agent), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV, (represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders, avocat, and T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission by which that Court annulled the Commission's Decision of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration that creates a joint venture combining the activities of Sony and Bertelsmann in the recorded music sector to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Matthias Zerche (C-334/06) and Manfred Seuke (C-336/06) v Landkreis Mittweida and Steffen Schubert (C-335/06) v Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis

(Joint Cases C-334/06 to C-336/06) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol - New licence issued in another Member State - Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State - Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)

(2008/C 209/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Matthias Zerche (C-334/06), Manfred Seuke (C-336/06), Steffen Schubert (C-335/06)

Defendants: Landkreis Mittweida, Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) — Interpretation of Arts. 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State after the expiry of a ban imposed on the holder who has had his national licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and who has been unable to produce the medical/psychological report which is required in order to obtain a new licence in his State of residence — Abuse of law

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.

In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH

(Case C-427/06) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 13 EC - Directive 2000/78/EC - Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee - Age discrimination - Link with Community law)

(2008/C 301/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Birgit Bartsch

Defendant: Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of the principle of no discrimination on the ground of age in Article 13 EC and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Occupational pension scheme (betriebliche Altersversorgung) excluding a right to retirement pension (Ruhegeld) for a surviving spouse 15 years younger than the deceased former employee — Application of the principle of no discrimination on the ground of age in the absence of a link to a situation envisaged by other provisions of Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law. No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, before the time-limit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that: — projects which are within the scope of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment either before or after amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 are, before they are executed in whole or in part, first, considered with regard to the need for an environmental impact assessment and, secondly, where those projects are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location, that they are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337, and — development consents given for, and the execution of work on, wind farm developments and associated works at Derrybrien, County Galway, were preceded by an assessment with regard to their environmental effects, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337 either before or after amendment by Directive 97/11, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 4 and 5 to 10 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-249/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC - Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of the bilateral agreements entered into with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union - Investment agreements entered into by the Kingdom of Sweden with the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Hong Kong, the Republic of Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Madagascar, Malaysia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Senegal, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Republic of Tunisia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Yemen and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

2009/C 102/03

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Tufvesson, B. Martenczuk and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and K. Wistrand, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, K. Szíjjártó and M. Fehér, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to take the steps necessary to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of bilateral agreements entered into with third countries before the accession of the Member State to the European Communities — Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Kingdom of Sweden with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and sixteen other countries

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in the investment agreements concluded with the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Hong Kong, the Republic of Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Madagascar, Malaysia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Senegal, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Republic of Tunisia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Yemen and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC;

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

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-239/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)

2010/C 51/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, A. Samoni-Rantou and K. Boskovits, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and the corresponding provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p) — Duty-free imports of military equipment — Refusal to calculate the amounts which should have been collected and allocated to the Communities’ own resources.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by exempting imports of military material from customs duties in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 and by refusing to calculate, declare and make available to the European Commission in good time the own resources which were not collected because of that exemption and the default interest payable because of the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission in good time, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-518/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Third-party liability motor insurance - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Directive 92/49/EEC - National legislation imposing an obligation to insure on insurance undertakings - Restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services - Social protection for victims of road traffic accidents - Proportionality - Insurance undertakings’ freedom to set rates - Principle of supervision by the home Member State)

2009/C 153/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by E. Traversa and N. Yerrell, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by J. Himmanen, Agent)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Infringement of Articles 6, 9, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) — Calculation of insurance premiums — Obligations imposed on insurers whose head office is in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/27

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-294/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 51/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, acting as Agent)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with 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 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda — OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34)

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 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, 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 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-6/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/74/EC - Protection of workers - Insolvency of employer)

(2008/C 22/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10)

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 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 56 of 10.3.2007.