ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities — Republic of Austria, Lenzing Fibers GmbH, Land Burgenland

(Case C-260/05 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Admissibility - Measure of individual concern to the applicant)

(2008/C 8/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Sniace SA (represented by: J. Baró Fuentes, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendía Sierra, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: H. Dossi, Agent), Lenzing Fibers GmbH (formerly Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG) (represented by U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt), Land Burgenland (represented by U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 14 April 2005 in Case T-88/01 Sniace SA v Commission declaring inadmissible the appellant's action for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State aid granted by Austria to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG (OJ 2001 L 38, p. 33)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sniace SA to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-152/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC - National legislation - Conditions for the grant of a subsidy for the construction or purchase of a dwelling for personal occupation - Dwelling required to be situated in the territory of the Member State concerned)

(2008/C 64/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Gross, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze Bahr, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18, 39 and 43 EC — National legislation under which a housing allowance (Eigenheimzulage) for the construction or purchase of a person's dwelling is granted only to persons subject to unlimited taxation in that Member State and only for dwellings situated in that State.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by excluding in the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the Law on subsidies for owner-occupied dwellings (Eigenheimzulagengesetz), in the version published in 1997, as amended by the ancillary budget law of 2004 (Haushaltsbegleitgesetz 2004), dwellings in another Member State from eligibility for the subsidy for owner-occupied dwellings granted to persons liable to unlimited taxation on income, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC;

2) Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.
1)

The provisions of Annex VI, Part C, headed ‘Germany’, point 1, to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are incompatible with freedom of movement for persons, and, in particular, with Article 42 EC, in that they make it possible, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to make the inclusion, for the purposes of the payment of old-age benefits, of contribution periods completed between 1937 and 1945 on the parts of the territory where the social security legislation of the German Reich was applicable, but which are outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, subject to the condition that the recipient reside in the territory of that Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-110/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Concept of ‘measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports’ - Prohibition on mopeds, motorcycles, motor tricycles and quadricycles towing a trailer in the territory of a Member State - Road safety - Market access - Obstacle - Proportionality)

(2009/C 82/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and F. Amato, Agents,)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Article 28 EC — National legislation prohibiting motor vehicles (with the exception of tractors) from pulling trailers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union

(Case C-91/05) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 47 EU - Common foreign and security policy - Decision 2004/833/CFSP - Implementation of Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP - Combating the proliferation of small arms and light weapons - Community competence - Development cooperation policy)

(2008/C 171/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P.J. Kuijper, J. Enegren and M. Petite, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, K. Lindahl and D. Gauci, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, (represented by: J.-C. Piris, R. Gosalbo Bono, S Marquardt and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: A. Jacobsen, C. Thorning and L. Lander Madsen, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, Agent), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and C. Jurgensen, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. de Grave, C. Wissels and H.G. Sevenster, Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by R. Caudwell and E. Jenkinson, Agents, assisted by A. Dashwood, Barrister)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons (OJ 2004 L 359, p. 65) and a declaration of the unlawfulness of Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 191, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Annuls Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Tomás Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-9/06 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 22/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Commission of the European Communities

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tomás Salazar Brier (represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, J. Rivas Andrés and M. Canal, abogado)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities (T-83/03), dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 July 2003 impliedly refusing the applicant's complaint of 24 February 2003 and its express refusal, on 24 March 2003, 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

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Salazar Brier to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 60 11.3.2006.
1.

‘Force majeure’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, refers to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances extraneous to the authorised warehousekeeper, the consequences of which, despite the exercise by him of all due care, could not have been avoided. The requirement that the circumstances must be extraneous to the authorised warehousekeeper is not limited to those circumstances which are outside his control in a material or physical sense, but refers also to circumstances which are objectively outside the authorised warehousekeeper's control or situated outside his sphere of responsibility.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Spain) — Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet

(Case C-328/06) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 4(2)(d) - ‘Well-known’ marks in a Member State within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Knowledge of the trade mark - Geographical area)

(2008/C 22/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfredo Nieto Nuño

Defendant: Leonci Monlleó Franquet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘well known’ — Whether knowledge and use may be confined to a limited territory, such as an autonomous community, a region, an area or a city, depending on the goods or services concerned and the public for whom the mark is intended

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the earlier trade mark must be well known throughout the territory of the Member State of registration or in a substantial part of it.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic

(Case C-6/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Principles of relative stability, legal certainty and legitimate expectations - Admissibility - Appeal in part unfounded and in part inadmissible - Cross appeal - Application to set aside part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance inasmuch as it holds that it is not necessary to rule on a plea of inadmissibility brought against an action which it dismissed as unfounded - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Res judicata)

(2008/C 64/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents), Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández) and the French Republic

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council in which the Court dismissed the action for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Council's authorisation of the transfer to the French Republic of part of the quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the principal appeal, brought by Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council;

2. Dismisses the cross appeal brought by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council, and the Council of the European Union, to bear their own costs;

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

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/23

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark

(Case C-436/06) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Taxation - Income tax - National legislation concerning the taxation of profits made from the sale of shareholdings (shares) in limited companies)

(2008/C 51/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — Tax on the profits made from the sale of shares in limited companies — National legislation making taxation conditional upon a shareholding of at least 10 % if the company concerned is subject to unlimited corporation tax in the Member State, but conditional upon a shareholding of at least 1 % if the company concerned is established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the profits from a sale of shares in 2001 in a limited company established in another Member State are immediately taxable where the seller had held, either directly or indirectly, a share of at least 1 % of the company's capital within the previous five years, whereas the profits from the sale of shares in 2001, in the same circumstances, in a limited company established in that first Member State subject to unlimited corporation tax were subject to tax only in the case of a substantial shareholding of at least 10 %.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, Netherlands) — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-446/06) (1)

(Beef and veal - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 - Article 3(f) - Grant of a suckler cow premium - Conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice)

(2008/C 107/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.G. Winkel

Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ L 1999 L 160, p. 21) — Compatibility of national legislation which makes the award of a suckler-cow premium subject to conditions corresponding to a usual animal husbandry practice

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1512/2001 of 23 July 2001, does not preclude national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
1.

The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not bound to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Applying Community law, the national court must order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness. Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State's right to re-implement it, subsequently. It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany)) — Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-346/06) (1)

(Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers in the context of the provision of services - Procedures for the award of public works contracts - Social protection of workers)

(2008/C 128/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Celle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Re:

Preliminary reference — Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National legislation requiring undertakings involved in the tendering procedure for public-works contracts to give a commitment that they will comply with, and ensure compliance by their subcontractors with, the provisions on minimum pay prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where the services in question are to be provided.

Operative part of the judgment

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, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, precludes an authority of a Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from adopting a measure of a legislative nature requiring the contracting authority to designate as contractors for public works contracts only those undertakings which, when submitting their tenders, agree in writing to pay their employees, in return for performance of the services concerned, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement the minimum wage in force at the place where those services are performed.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
1.

Despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, the competent authority may consider, pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation, that Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, has not been complied with. However, the competent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98, on the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation concerning animal health, or on any other objective element with implications for the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, if appropriate, that the elements relied on by the competent authority in substantiation of its finding of non compliance with Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, are irrelevant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium)) — Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken

(Case C-197/06) (1)

(Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Estate agent)

(2008/C 142/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars

Defendant: Willem Van Leuken

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of 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) — Obligation on an estate agent established in one Member State and engaged in agency activities in another Member State to satisfy the conditions governing the exercise of that profession which are imposed by the legislation of that latter State in pursuance of the directive — Requirement imposed even in the case where there is a contract of collaboration between that estate agent and an estate agent who is authorised by that latter State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 4 of 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, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings by a service provider established in another Member State, and in a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.