ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary with respect to the zoos which are the subject of the present action in the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Asturias, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castile and Leon, Valencia, Extremadura and Galicia concerning the inspection, licensing and, if appropriate, the closure of those establishments in accordance with Article 4(2), to (5) of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 December 2008 in Case T-85/06 General Química and Others v Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action brought by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2006/902/EC of 21 December 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. (formerly Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (formerly Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA (Case No COMP/F/C.38.443 — Rubber chemicals), in so far as, first, the Court of First Instance did not set out the reasons behind its conclusion that the order given by Repsol Qímica SA to General Química SA to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of the competition rules was sufficient, in itself, to prove that Repsol Química SA exercised a decisive influence over General Química SA’s policy not only on the market but also as regards the unlawful conduct at issue in Decision 2006/902 and, second, the Court of First Instance failed to conduct a concrete examination of the evidence submitted by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA to demonstrate General Química SA’s independence in determining and implementing its commercial policy;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands)) — Premis Medical BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, Kantoor Laan op Zuid

(Case C-273/09) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 - Classification of the product ‘walker-rollator’ in the Combined Nomenclature - Heading 9021 - Heading 8716 - Corrigendum - Validity)

2011/C 63/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Premis Medical BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, Kantoor Laan op Zuid

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 113, p. 5) — Orthopaedic appliances or appliances designed to compensate for a defect or disability within the meaning of Heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature — Mobile walking aids designed to designed to assist those with limited mobility

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004, is invalid in so far as, first, that corrigendum extended the scope of application of the initial regulation to walker-rollators consisting of an aluminium frame on four wheels, two of which are front swivel wheels, handles and brakes, and designed to assist persons who have difficulties in walking and, secondly, it classifies those walker-rollators under subheading 8716 80 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-41/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of horses)

2011/C 130/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, M. Noort, D.J.M. de Grave and J. Langer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, Agents), French Republic (represented by: B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 12 of, in conjunction with Annex H to, 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) and of Articles 96, 97, 98 and 99 of, in conjunction with Annex III to, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular, horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports, and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12, read in conjunction with Annex H, 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, as amended by Council Directive 2006/18/EC of 14 February 2006, and under Articles 96 to 99(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Vicoplus SC PUH (C-307/09), BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo (C-308/09), Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo (C-309/09) v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

(Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - 2003 Act of Accession - Transitional measures - Access of Polish nationals to the labour market of States which were already Member States of the European Union at the time of the accession of the Republic of Poland - Requirement of a work permit for the making available of labour - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 1(3))

2011/C 103/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vicoplus SC PUH (C-307/09), BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo (C-308/09), Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo (C-309/09)

Defendant: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — National legislation under which a work permit is required for the making available of workers

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU do not preclude a Member State from making, during the transitional period provided for in Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, the hiring-out, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, on its territory, of workers who are Polish nationals subject to the obtaining of a work permit.

2. The hiring-out of workers, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71, is a service provided for remuneration in respect of which the worker who has been hired out remains in the employ of the undertaking providing the service, no contract of employment being entered into with the user undertaking. It is characterised by the fact that the movement of the worker to the host Member State constitutes the very purpose of the provision of services effected by the undertaking providing the services and that that worker carries out his tasks under the control and direction of the user undertaking.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-96/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(4) - Application for registration of the word and figurative mark BUD - Opposition - Indication of geographical origin ‘bud‘ - Protection under the Lisbon Agreement and bilateral treaties between two Member States - Use in the course of trade - Sign of more than mere local significance)

2011/C 152/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anheuser-Busch Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (represented by F. Fajgenbaum, T. Lachacinski, C. Petsch and S. Sculy-Logotheti, lawyers), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06 Budějovický Budvar v OHIM and Anheuser-Busch, by which the Court of First Instance annulled decisions R 234/2005-2, R 241/ 2005-2, R 802/2004-2 and R 305/2005-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) dismissing the appeals brought against the decisions of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition brought by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik against the application for registration of the word mark ‘BUD’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06 Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD) in so far as the Court, with regard to the interpretation of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 422/2004 of 19 February 2004, erred in holding, first, that the significance of the sign concerned, which cannot be merely local, must be evaluated exclusively by reference to the extent of the territory in which the sign is protected, without taking account of its use in that territory, second, that the relevant territory for the purpose of evaluating the use of that sign is not necessarily the territory in which the sign is protected and, finally, that the use of the sign does not necessarily have to occur before the date of the application for registration of the Community trade mark;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

3. Refers Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06 back to the General Court of the European Union;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp v Skatteverket

(Case C-540/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(d)(5) - Exemptions - Underwriting guarantee provided against payment of a commission by credit institutions to the issuing companies in respect of a share issue on the capital markets - Transactions in securities)

2011/C 139/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB Momsgrupp

Defendant: Skatteverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (formerly Regeringsrätten) — Interpretation of Article 13 B 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) — Exemptions — Underwriting guarantee issued by a bank to a company issuing new shares in return for payment of a commission — Transaction consisting in an undertaking by the bank to acquire part of the shares in the issuing company in the event that an insufficient number of shares is subscribed, in order to guarantee to the issuing company the financing sought by the issue (underwriting)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(5) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT laid down therein covers services supplied by a credit institution, for consideration, in the form of an underwriting guarantee to a company wishing to issue shares, where under that guarantee the credit institution undertakes to acquire any shares which are not subscribed within the period for share subscription.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)) — Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-434/09) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - ‘Beneficiary’ - Article 3(1) - National who has never made use of his right of free movement and has always resided in the Member State of his nationality - Effect of being a national of another Member State - Purely internal situation)

2011/C 186/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Shirley McCarthy

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 16 of Directive 2004/58/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 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Concepts of ‘beneficiary’ and ‘legal residence’ — British citizen who also has Irish nationality and has always lived in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State.

2. Article 21 TFEU is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State, provided that the situation of that citizen does not include the application of measures by a Member State that would have the effect of depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen or of impeding the exercise of his right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-331/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland to Technologie Buczek Group - Commission decision declaring that aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

2011/C 179/05

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the Commission Decision of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for the steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (State aid C(2007) 5087) (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26) — No immediate and effective implementation of that decision — Implementation not absolutely impossible

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with the provisions of the fourth subparagraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision;

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

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Central Bank

(Case C-401/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Admissibility - Power of attorney - Consortium - Public contracts - Negotiated procedure - IT consultancy and IT development services - Rejection of the tender - Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Interest in bringing proceedings - Ground for exclusion - Permit required by national law - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 226/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and G. Gruber, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06 Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Central Bank (ECB) dismissing an action for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 31 July 2006 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the negotiated procedure for the provision of IT consultancy and IT development services to the ECB (OJ 2005 S 137-135345) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-376/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 - Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons for non critical uses on board ships - Exceptions - Critical uses of halons 1301 and 2402)

2011/C 204/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and E. Depasquale, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri and A. Buhagiar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Limitation on the placing on the market and use of controlled substances — Halons — Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons — Fire protection systems and extinguishers on ships

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

(Case C-397/09) (1)

(Taxation - Directive 2003/49/EC - Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States - Business tax - Determination of the basis of assessment)

2011/C 269/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49) — Whether or not interest payments are included in the basis of assessment to trade tax of the debtor company

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national tax law under which loan interest paid by a company established in one Member State to an associated company in another Member State is incorporated into the basis of assessment of the business tax payable by the former company.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.