ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Article 43 EC is to be interpreted to the effect that collective action such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to induce a private undertaking whose registered office is in a given Member State to enter into a collective work agreement with a trade union established in that State and to apply the terms set out in that agreement to the employees of a subsidiary of that undertaking established in another Member State, constitutes a restriction within the meaning of that article. That restriction may, in principle, be justified by an overriding reason of public interest, such as the protection of workers, provided that it is established that the restriction is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
1.

Declares that, by refusing to calculate and make payment to the European Commission of own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 in relation to imports of military material which were exempted from customs duties, and by refusing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the European Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, 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, until 31 May 2000, and, after that date, 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;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Federal Republic of Germany (C-75/05 P), Glunz AG, OSB Deutschland GmbH (C-80/05 P) v Kronofrance SA, Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Interested parties - Regional aid for large investment projects - Multisectoral framework of 1998)

(2008/C 285/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing, C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt) (C-75/05 P), Glunz AG, OSB Deutschland GmbH (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kronofrance SA (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, Rechtsanwälte), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 (Kronofrance SA v Commission, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH), by which the Court annulled the Commission's Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to object to the aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz AG — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Infringement of Article 87(3) EC — Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs relating to Case C-75/05 P;

3. Orders Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs relating to Case C 80/05 P;

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — C

(Case C-435/06) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Substantive and temporal scope - Definition of ‘civil matters’ - Decision concerning the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home - Public law measures for child protection)

(2008/C 22/20)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(b) and (2)(d) and Article 64 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Material scope — Recognition and enforcement of an administrative decision, confirmed by a judicial decision, concerning the placement of children by the authorities outside the family home — Public law measures for protection of children

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004, is to be interpreted to the effect that a single decision ordering a child to be taken into care and placed outside his original home in a foster family is covered by the term ‘civil matters’ for the purposes of that provision, where that decision was adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection.

2. Regulation No 2201/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2116/2004, is to be interpreted as meaning that harmonised national legislation on the recognition and enforcement of administrative decisions on the taking into care and placement of persons, adopted in the context of Nordic Cooperation, may not be applied to a decision to take a child into care that falls within the scope of that regulation.

3. Subject to the factual assessment which is a matter for the national court alone, Regulation No 2201/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2116/2004, is to be interpreted as applying ratione temporis in a case such as that in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-8/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 22/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Anna Herrero Romeu (represented by: J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Peréz, A. Sayagéus Torres, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, J. Rivas Andrés and M. Canal, abogados)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Herrero Romeu v Commission (T-298/02), dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2002 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Herrero Romeu to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/15

Order of the Court of 18 December 2007 — Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-202/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Competence of the Commission - Notification of a concentration having a Community dimension - Commitments proposed by the parties - Effect on the Commission's competence - Authorisation subject to certain commitments - Principle of proportionality)

(2008/C 51/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (represented by: W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P. Kreijger, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, A. Nijenhuis and A. Whelan, Agents)

Action

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02 Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2002)2315 final of 26 June 2002 relating to a procedure pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Haniel/Cementbouw/JV (CVK), declaring a concentration entailing the acquisition of joint control of the cooperative CVK by Franz Haniel & Cie GmbH and Cememtbouw Handel & Industrie BV to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement, on condition that certain commitments be complied with in order to correct the dominant position created on the Netherlands market in construction materials for load-bearing walls — Incorrect interpretation of Articles l, 2, and 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1) and of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (OJ 1997 L 180, p. 1) — Breach of the principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-417/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Admissibility - Structural Funds - Financing of Community initiatives - Amendment of indicative allocations - Enforcement of the final judgment)

(2008/C 22/19)

Language of the case: italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, D. Del Gaizo and G. Albenzio, avvocati dello Stato)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 Italy v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 310 of 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-70/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Financial penalty)

(2008/C 64/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, A. Caeiros and P. Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, P. Fragoso Martins and J. A. de Oliveira, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 — Imperfect transposition into domestic law of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Request that a penalty should be fixed

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by failing to repeal Decree-Law No 48 051 of 21 November 1967, making the award of damages to persons injured by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or fraud, the Portuguese Republic has failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal and has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;

2) Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 19 392 for every day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal is complied with;

3) Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/23

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit

(Case C-463/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Liability insurance - Action brought by the injured party directly against the insurer - Rule of jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled)

(2008/C 51/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV

Defendant: Jack Odenbreit

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) 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) — Legal proceedings against the civil liability insurance provider in the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled — Beneficiary of insurance

Operative part of the judgment

The reference in Article 11(2) 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 to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-498/06) (1)

(Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer - Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC - First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) - Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extra-judicial conciliation procedure - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision - Principles of equality and non-discrimination)

(2008/C 92/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maira María Robledillo Núñez

Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Article 3 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), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Scope of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — Compensation in the event of termination of the employment relationship — National rules which require judgment or administrative decision for such compensation — Principles of equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an extra-judicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S-Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants

(Case C-449/06) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Staff Regulations - Family allowances - Calculation of the amount of national family allowances - Determination of the ranking of the children - Child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations)

(2008/C 79/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophiane Gysen

Defendant: Groupe S-Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation [of Article 67] of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 1) — Family allowances — Permissibility of a national family allowance system which excludes, from the calculation of the order of the beneficiary children, children in respect of whom there is entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations — Legal classification of the Staff Regulations of Officials under national law

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2074/83 of 21 July 1983, has general application, is binding in its entirety and is directly applicable in all Member States. In view of the direct applicability of that regulation in the legal systems of the Member States, a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities must be treated in the same way as a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under national law or an international social security convention in force in the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Legislative Decree No 36 of 13 January 2003, as amended, which transposes Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste into national law, — in so far as that legislative decree does not provide for the application of Articles 2 to 13 of Directive 1999/31 to landfills authorised subsequent to the date of expiry of the period for transposition of that directive and prior to the date of the entry into force of the legislative decree, and — in so far as it does not secure the transposition of Article 14(d)(i) of that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 14 of Directive 1999/31;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — European Parliament (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark (C-295/06) v Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06) (1)

(Directive 2002/95/EC - Electrical and electronic equipment - Restriction of use of certain hazardous substances - Decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) - Commission Decision 2005/717/EC - Exemption of DecaBDE from the prohibition on use - Actions for annulment - Commission's implementing powers - Infringement of the enabling provision)

(2008/C 116/04)

Languages of the case: English and Danish

Parties

Applicants: European Parliament, (represented by: K. Bradley, A. Neergaard and I. Klavina, Agents) (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, B. Weis Fogh and J. Bering Liisberg, Agents) (C-295/06)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (Case C-14/06), (represented by: J. Molde, B. Weis Fogh and J. Bering Liisberg, Agents), Portuguese Republic, (represented by: L. Fernandes and M.J. Lois, Agents), Republic of Finland, (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden, (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent), Kingdom of Norway, (represented by: I. Djupvik, K. Waage and K.B. Moen, Agent, and by E. Holmedal, advokat)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis, M. Konstantinidis and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, Agent, and by J. Maurici, Barrister)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (notified under document number C(2005) 3754) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 48) — Exemption of decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) from the marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/95/EC without respecting the conditions laid down by Article 5(1) of that directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Point 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;

2. Declares that the effects of point 2 of the Annex to Decision 2005/717 are maintained until 30 June 2008 inclusive;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the European Parliament and those of the Kingdom of Denmark in Case C-295/06;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, in Case C-14/06, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.