ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier — France) — Criminal proceedings of extradition v Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea

(Case C-296/08 PPU) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Articles 31 and 32 - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Possibility for the State executing an extradition request to apply a convention adopted before 1 January 2004 but applicable in that State from a later date)

(2008/C 260/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier

Party in the main proceedings

Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) — Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Power of a Member State to use in its relations with another Member State procedures other than those provided for in the Framework Decision, in particular, those provided for by the Dublin Convention of 27 September 1996 relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union — Effect of the failure of the Member State issuing the arrest warrant to give notification of the agreements and arrangements which it wishes to continue to apply — Possibility, for the Member State executing the arrest warrant, to apply a convention adopted prior to 1 January 2004, but which entered into force in that Member State after that date

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 31 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of that Framework Decision;

2. Article 32 of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as not precluding the application by an executing Member State of the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union drawn up by Council Act of 27 September 1996 and signed on that date by all the Member States, even where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-93/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Article 11 - Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction - Prior determination whether an intellectual property right has been infringed - Administrative penalty)

(2009/C 82/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction without first determining whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right under law — National legislation providing that an administrative penalty be imposed where the goods declared infringe an intellectual property right

Operative part of the judgment

The initiation, with the agreement of an intellectual property right-holder and of the importer, of the simplified procedure laid down in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, does not deprive the competent national authorities of the power to impose, on the parties responsible for importing those goods into the Community customs territory, a ‘penalty’, within the meaning of Article 18 of that regulation, such as an administrative fine.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Gateway, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH

(Case C-57/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Earlier marks including the word sign ‘GATEWAY’ - Word sign ‘ACTIVY Media Gateway’ - Absence of similarity of the signs - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Taking into account of the renown of earlier marks when carrying out a global assessment of opposing signs)

(2009/C 32/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gateway, Inc. (represented by: C.R. Jones, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Case T-434/05 Gateway, Inc. v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word element ‘GATEWAY’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37 and 38 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 in Case R 1068/2004+1 dismissing the appeal brought by the appellant against the Opposition Division's decision, which rejected the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the word mark ‘ACTIVY Media Gateway’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 35, 38 and 42

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gateway, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nógrád Megyei Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

(Case C-74/08) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Accession of a new Member State - Tax on subsidised purchase of goods - Right to deduct - Exclusions laid down by national legislation at the time the Sixth Directive came into force - Member States’ option to retain exclusions))

2009/C 141/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Nógrád Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft.

Defendant: Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nógrád Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 17 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) — National legislation restricting the deductibility of the tax relating to the subsidised acquisition of equipment to the non-subsidised portion

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17(2) and (6) 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, must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national legislation which in the case of acquisition of goods subsidised by public funds, allow the deduction of related VAT only up to the limit of the part of the costs of that acquisition that is not subsidised.

2. Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive confers on taxable persons rights on which they may rely before a national court to contest national rules that are incompatible with that Article.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/22;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/20

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Société Moteurs Leroy Somer v Société Dalkia France, Société Ace Europe

(Case C-285/08) (1)

(Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Scope - Damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose - National system permitting the injured person to seek compensation for such damage, where he simply proves the damage, the defect and the causal link - Compatibility)

2009/C 180/33

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Moteurs Leroy Somer

Defendants: Société Dalkia France, Société Ace Europe

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — Material scope of application of the directive — Lawfulness of a national system of liability permitting compensation to be obtained for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose — Damage to a hospital generator due to the fact that an alternator overheated.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted to mean that it does not preclude the interpretation of domestic law or the application of settled domestic case-law according to which an injured person can seek compensation for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose, where that injured person simply proves the damage, the defect in the product and the causal link between that defect and the damage.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/16

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-390/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Decision No 280/2004/EC - Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol - National measures intended to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions - Failure to communicate the information required)

2009/C 153/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-P. Keppenne, 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 communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, the information required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57) — Information relating to national projections concerning greenhouse gas emissions and measures adopted to limit and/or reduce such emissions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required by 15 March 2007 under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

(1) OJ C 285 of 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-469/08) (1)

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

2009/C 205/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted or notified, within the prescribed period, all the measures 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 not adopting, 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 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 6, 10.01.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-33/08) (1)

(Sugar - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Calculation of the temporary restructuring amount - Inclusion of the part of the quota subject to a preventive withdrawal - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

2009/C 180/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Defendant: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34 EC and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Interpretation and validity of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Whether the part of the quota subject to preventive withdrawal pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002 (OJ 2006 L 89, p. 11) should be included in the calculation of the temporary restructuring amount.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that the part of the sugar quota allocated to an undertaking, which has been subject to a preventive withdrawal pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1542/2006 of 13 October 2006, is to be included in the basis for the calculation of the temporary amount.

2. Examination of the second question has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Sezione Lavoro (Italy)) — Raffaello Visciano v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-69/08) (1)

(Social policy - Protection of workers - Insolvency of employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Obligation to pay all outstanding claims up to a pre-established ceiling - Nature of an employee’s claims against a guarantee institution - Limitation period)

2009/C 220/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli — Sezione Lavoro

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaello Visciano

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli Sezione Lavoro –Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 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 1980 L 283, p. 23) — Guarantee corresponding to the last three months’ salary under the employment contract, subject to a maximum amount fixed in advance — Deduction from the compensation paid of advances on salary received from the employer — National legislation permitting the same benefit to be given a different legal classification according to the party required to pay that benefit and also permitting a change in the limitation period for bringing an action

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 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 do not preclude national legislation which allows employees’ outstanding claims to be classified as ‘social security benefits’ where they are paid by a guarantee institution.

2. Directive 80/987 does not preclude national legislation which uses the employee’s initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison for the determination of the benefit to be guaranteed by the intervention of a guarantee fund.

3. In the context of an application by an employee for payment by a guarantee fund of outstanding claims relating to pay, Directive 80/987 does not preclude the application of a limitation period of one year (principle of equivalence). However, it is for the national court to examine whether it is framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights recognised by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-356/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with a particular bank)

2009/C 205/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa, acting as Agent and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC — National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing an obligation on every medical doctor becoming established in Oberösterreich (Land of Upper Austria) to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank in Linz to which fees for benefits in kind in the context of the exercise of his professional activity are to be transferred by the health insurance funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 EC;

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

(1) OJ C 247, 27.09.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/23

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Adolf Darbo AG

(Case C-366/08) (1)

(Harmonisation of laws - Directive 95/2/EC - Part A of Annex III - Directive 2001/113/EC - Second paragraph of Part II of Annex I - Extra jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative - Term ‘low sugar jam’)

2009/C 267/39

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: Adolf Darbo AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners (OJ 1995 L 61, p. 1) and the second paragraph of Part II of Annex I to Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 10, p. 67) — Ability to market, under the name ‘extra jam’, jam with a soluble dry matter content of 58 % and containing potassium sorbate (E 202) as a preservative — Term ‘low-sugar jam’.

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘low-sugar jams’ in Part A of Annex III to European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, as amended by Directive 98/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 October 1998, covers jams described as ‘jam’ and ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content appreciably lower than the reference value of 60 %. Products described as ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content of 58 % cannot be considered to be low sugar within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.