ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-54/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Civil-law notaries - Nationality condition - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directives 89/48/EEC and 2005/36/EC)

2011/C 204/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and G. Braun, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, J. Kemper, U. Karpenstein and J. Möller, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, G. Holley and M. Aufner, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, C. Herma and D. Lutostańska, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 45 EC — Failure to transpose, as regards the profession of notary, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and 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) — National legislation making the exercise of the profession of notary subject to the condition of nationality — Concept of ‘activity connected with the exercise of official authority’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality condition for access to the profession of notary, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure the implementation of the measures provided for under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Lahti Energia Oy

(Case C-209/09) (1)

(Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Incineration plant - Co-incineration plant - Complex comprising a gas plant and a power plant - Incineration in the power plant of non-purified gas produced from the thermal treatment of waste in the gas plant)

2010/C 100/12

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Lahti Energia Oy

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91) — Complex consisting of a plant producing gas from waste and a power plant whose steam boiler burns the gas produced from the thermal treatment of waste in the gas plant — Combustion in the steam boiler of the power plant of non-purified instead of purified gas

Operative part of the judgment

A power plant which uses as an additional fuel, in substitution for fossil fuels used for the most part in its production activities, gas obtained in a gas plant following thermal treatment of waste is to be regarded, jointly with that gas plant, as a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste when the gas in question has not been purified within the gas plant.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Republic of Slovenia) — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia

(Case C-403/09 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Provisional measures concerning custody - Decision enforceable in a Member State - Wrongful removal of the child - Other Member State - Other court - Custody of the child granted to the other parent - Jurisdiction - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)

2010/C 63/24

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jasna Detiček

Defendant: Maurizio Sgueglia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 20 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) — Provisional and protective measures — Jurisdiction of a court in Member State A to rule provisionally on an application to have custody of the child restored, the court dealing with the substance (disposing of the divorce proceedings) being in Member State B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 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, must be interpreted as not allowing, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a court of a Member State to take a provisional measure in matters of parental responsibility granting custody of a child who is in the territory of that Member State to one parent, where a court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction under that regulation as to the substance of the dispute relating to custody of the child, has already delivered a judgment provisionally giving custody of the child to the other parent, and that judgment has been declared enforceable in the territory of the former Member State.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France)) — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v Ville d’Orléans

(Case C-210/09) (1)

(State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3) - Recovery of aid - Principle of effectiveness - Assessments vitiated by a procedural defect - Annulment)

2010/C 179/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS

Defendant: Ville d’Orléans

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Interpretation of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Aid granted by the French authorities in favour of Scott SA and Kimberly Clark — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared incompatible with the common market — Effect on that obligation of possible annulment, on grounds of procedural defect, of the assessments issued by the national authorities for the recovery of that aid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances in which amounts corresponding to the aid in question have already been recovered, annulment by the national court of assessments issued in order to recover the unlawful State aid on grounds of there being a procedural defect, where it is possible to rectify that procedural defect under national law. That provision does, however, preclude those amounts being paid once again, even provisionally, to the beneficiary of that aid.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the correct and complete transposition of Article 2.13, Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), in so far as, for the latter paragraph, demolishers which have accepted to take back an end-of-life vehicle for destruction are excluded from the system of compensation for costs of treatment, Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

(Case C-31/09) (1)

(Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not sought protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - Application for refugee status - Refusal based on a failure to meet the conditions laid down in Article 1A of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 - Right of that stateless person to be recognised as a refugee on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83)

2010/C 221/13

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nawras Bolbol

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fövárosi Bíróság (Hungary) — Interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not availed herself of the protection and assistance of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), whose application seeking the grant of refugee status has been refused on the ground of failure to meet the conditions laid down in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention — Right of that stateless person to be granted refugee status on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC

Operative part of the judgment

For the purposes of the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, a person receives protection or assistance from an agency of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when that person has actually availed himself of that protection or assistance.

(1) OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Pannon Gép Centrum Kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

(Case C-368/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - National legislation penalising an error in the invoice by loss of the right to deduct)

2010/C 246/18

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pannon Gép Centrum Kft

Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Biróság — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 18(1) and 22(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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 Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (OJ 2002 L 15, p. 24) — Loss of the right to deduct for a recipient of services by reason of an error in the completion date of the works referred to in the invoice issued by the provider — National rules penalising any formal defect in the invoice by the loss of the right to deduct

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice whereby the national authorities deny to a taxable person the right to deduct from the VAT which he is liable to pay the VAT due or paid in respect of services supplied to him on the grounds that the initial invoice, in the possession of the taxable person when the deduction is made, contained an incorrect completion date for the supply of services and the numbering of the subsequently corrected invoice and the credit note cancelling the initial invoice were not sequential, if the material conditions governing deduction are satisfied and, before the tax authority concerned has made a decision, the taxable person has submitted to the tax authority a corrected invoice stating the correct date on which that supply of services was completed, even though the numbering of that invoice and the credit note cancelling the initial invoice are not sequential.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/13

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Gerhard Dijkman, Maria Dijkman-Lavaleije v Belgische Staat

(Case C-233/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Difference in treatment according to the place of investment)

2010/C 234/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerhard Dijkman, Maria Dijkman-Lavaleije

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) — National income tax rules — Supplementary municipal tax calculated on the basis of the amount of income tax — Discharge resulting from withholding tax on movable assets — Different treatment according to the place of investment — Compatibility with Article 56(1) EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State according to which taxpayers resident in that Member State who receive interest or dividends from investments made in another Member State are subject to a supplementary municipal tax when they have not elected for that income from moveable assets to be paid to them by an intermediary established in their Member State of residence, whereas income of the same type from investments made in their Member State of residence, because it is subject to withholding tax at source, need not be declared and, in that case, is not subject to the supplementary municipal tax.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/11

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Evets Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-479/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark DANELECTRO - Figurative mark QWIK TUNE - Request for renewal of registration of the trade mark - Application for restitutio in integrum - Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of registration of the trade mark)

2010/C 317/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evets Corp. (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08 Evets v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 5 November 2007 in Case R 603/2007-4 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division and declaring that the application for restitutio in integrum filed by the appellant with a view to having its rights regarding the renewal of the word mark ‘DANELECTRO’ re-established was deemed not to have been filed on account of lateness — Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of the trade marks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania)) — Kirin Amgen Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

(Case C-66/09) (1)

(Patent law - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Articles 7, 19 and 19a(e) - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Period for lodging the application for such a certificate)

(2010/C 288/17)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kirin Amgen Inc.

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

Intervener: Amgen Europe BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Interpretation of Articles 3(b), 7(1), 13(1), 19 and 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Company holding a European patent and a Community marketing authorisation for a medicinal product, which applied for a supplementary protection certificate for that product — Determination of the commencement date of the period laid down for lodging an application for a supplementary protection certificate — Date on which the marketing authorisation was granted or date on which the regulation in question entered into force for Lithuania through its accession to the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 7 and 19a(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by 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, must be interpreted as not allowing the holder of a valid basic patent in respect of a product to apply to the competent Lithuanian authorities, within six months of the date upon which the Republic of Lithuania acceded to the European Union, for the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where an authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was obtained more than six months before accession under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, but the product did not obtain a marketing authorisation in Lithuania.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl v European Commission

(Case C-67/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy - Commission decision declaring that scheme compatible with the common market - Actions for damages in respect of the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision - Transitional measures between that scheme and the previous scheme - Temporal scope of application of the Commission’s decision not to object to the previous scheme - Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment)

2010/C 346/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl (represented by: A. Calabrese, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 2 December 2008 in Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05 Nuova Agricast v Commission by which the Court of First Instance rejected the claims for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State aid No 715/1999 — Italy (SG 2000 D/105754)) and as a result of the Commission’s conduct during the procedure which preceded the adoption of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.