ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/15

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Deli Ostrich NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-559/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Frozen camel meat not from farm-raised animals - Classification under subheading 0208 90 40 (other game meat) or 0208 90 95 (other))

2011/C 370/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deli Ostrich NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Camel meat not from farm-raised animals — Classification under subheading 0208 90 40 (game) or 0208 90 95 (other)?

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that camel meat must be classified under subheading 0208 90 40 as ‘other game meat’ if the camels from which that meat comes lived in the wild and were hunted.

(1) OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — Freixenet SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Joined Cases C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Applications for registration of Community trade marks representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle - Refusal to register - Lack of distinctive character)

2011/C 362/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Freixenet SA (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, avocats)

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 General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2007 (Case R 97/2001-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted white matt bottle as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 38(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (now Articles 7(1)(b), 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)) — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing — Refusal to register a trade mark — Absence of distinctive character

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2010 in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted white bottle), and in Case T-110/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted black matt bottle);

2. Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2007 (case R 97/2001-1) and of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1);

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs both at first instance and in the appeals.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
1.

Declares that — by excluding all liability of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals through an infringement of European Union law on the part of a court adjudicating at last instance when that infringement results from an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court and — by limiting that liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct, pursuant to Article 2(1) and (2) of Law No 117on the reparation of damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges [legge n. 117 (sul) risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell’ esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità civile dei magistrati], of 13 April 1988 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the general principal of the liability of Member States for infringements of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Rastelli Davide e C. Snc v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international

(Case C-191/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - International jurisdiction - Extension of insolvency proceedings opened in respect of a company established in one Member State to a company whose registered office is in another Member State because the property of the two companies has been intermixed)

2012/C 39/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rastelli Davide e C. Snc

Defendant: Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — International jurisdiction of the French courts to join to insolvency proceedings, opened in respect of a company established on the national territory, a company whose seat is in another Member State, because the property of the two companies has been intermixed — Notions of ‘opening’ and of ‘joinder’ in relation to insolvability proceedings — Determination of the centre of main interests

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings is to be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that has opened main insolvency proceedings against a company, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, can, under a rule of its national law, join to those proceedings a second company whose registered office is in another Member State only if it is established that the centre of that second company’s main interests is situated in the first Member State.

2. Regulation No 1346/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a company, whose registered office is situated within the territory of a Member State, is subject to an action that seeks to extend to it the effects of insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State against another company established within the territory of that other Member State, the mere finding that the property of those companies has been intermixed is not sufficient to establish that the centre of the main interests of the company concerned by the action is also situated in that other Member State. In order to reverse the presumption that this centre is the place of the registered office, it is necessary that an overall assessment of all the relevant factors allows it to be established, in a manner ascertainable by third parties, that the actual centre of management and supervision of the company concerned by the joinder action is situated in the Member State where the initial insolvency proceedings were opened.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — France Télécom v European Commission, French Republic

(Case C-81/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - France Télécom’s business tax regime - Concept of ‘aid’ - Legitimate expectations - Limitation period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of legal certainty)

2012/C 32/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: France Télécom SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, L. Olza Moreno and L. Godfroid, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgments of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France and France Télécom v Commission by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the French Republic and the appellant for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/709/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State aid implemented by France (OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30) — Misapplication of the concepts of ‘State aid’ and ‘advantage’ in connection with France Télécom’s business tax regime for the period 1994 to 2002 — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations — Limitation period for State aid — Obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of legal certainty

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders France Télécom SA to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-586/10) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Objective reasons liable to justify the renewal of such contracts - National rules justifying the use of fixed-term contracts in cases of temporary replacement - Permanent or recurring need for replacement staff - Taking into account of all circumstances surrounding the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts)

2012/C 73/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bianca Kücük

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National rules allowing the temporary replacement of employees as an objective reason justifying the use of fixed-term contracts — ‘Objective reasons’ liable to justify the renewal of such contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary need for replacement staff, provided for by national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may, in principle, constitute an objective reason under that clause. The mere fact that an employer may have to employ temporary replacements on a recurring, or even permanent, basis and that those replacements may also be covered by the hiring of employees under employment contracts of indefinite duration does not mean that there is no objective reason under clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement or that there is abuse within the meaning of that clause. However, in the assessment of the issue whether the renewal of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships is justified by such an objective reason, the authorities of the Member States must, for matters falling within their sphere of competence, take account of all the circumstances of the case, including the number and cumulative duration of the fixed-term employment contracts or relationships concluded in the past with the same employer.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon v Thomas Dutrueux, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura

(Case C-495/10) (1)

(Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Scope - National rules requiring public healthcare establishments to pay compensation, even when they are not at fault, for damage sustained by a patient as a result of the failure of equipment or products used in the course of treatment)

2012/C 49/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon

Defendants: Thomas Dutrueux, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — Liability of public health establishments towards their patients — Permissibility of a national liability scheme which allows an injured person to obtain compensation, even in the absence of fault, for injury caused by the failure of defective products — Limitation of the liability of the provider of services

Operative part of the judgment

The liability of a service provider which, in the course of providing services such as treatment given in a hospital, uses defective equipment or products of which it is not the producer within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, and thereby causes damage to the recipient of the service does not fall within the scope of the directive. Directive 85/374 does not therefore prevent a Member State from applying rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which such a provider is liable for damage thus caused, even in the absence of any fault on its part, provided, however, that the injured person and/or the service provider retain the right to put in issue the producer’s liability on the basis of the directive when the conditions laid down by the latter are fulfilled.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission

(Case C-549/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates)

2012/C 165/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, J. Midthjell, advokat and A. J. Ryan, solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06 Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 March 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra) imposing a fine of EUR 24 million on the appellants for abusing their dominant position by engaging in practices involving exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates in order to prevent or delay the entry of other manufacturers on the market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or substantial reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB and Tomra Butikksystemer AS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Alicante — Spain) — Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamientos SL

(Case C-488/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 19(1) - Community designs - Infringement or threatened infringement - Definition of ‘third parties’)

2012/C 98/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA

Defendant: Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento SL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Alicante — Interpretation of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — Infringement or threatened infringement — Concept of third parties

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute relating to infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a registered Community design, the right to prevent use by third parties of the design extends to any third party who uses a design that does not produce on informed users a different overall impression, including the third party holder of a later registered Community design.

2. The answer to the first question is unconnected with the intention or conduct of the third party.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
1.

It is for the national court, ruling on an action for an injunction, brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national law, to assess, with regard to Article 3(1) and (3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the unfair nature of a term included in the general business conditions of consumer contracts by which a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of fees connected with the service to be provided, without setting out clearly the method of fixing those fees or specifying a valid reason for that amendment. As part of this assessment, the national court must determine, inter alia, whether, in light of all the terms appearing in the general business conditions of consumer contracts which include the contested term, and in the light of the national legislation setting out rights and obligations which could supplement those provided by the general business conditions at issue, the reasons for, or the method of, the amendment of the fees connected with the service to be provided are set out in plain, intelligible language and, as the case may be, whether consumers have a right to terminate the contract.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-567/10) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Concept of plans and programmes ‘which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ - Applicability of the directive to a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan)

2012/C 133/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL

Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle — Interpretation of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Applicability of the directive to a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan — Interpretation of the concept of ‘plans and programmes which are required’ — Exclusion of plans the adoption of which is not compulsory

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of plans and programmes ‘which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’, appearing in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as also concerning specific land development plans, such as the one covered by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.

2. Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan, such as the procedure laid down in Articles 58 to 63 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code, as amended by the Order of 14 May 2009, falls in principle within the scope of that directive, so that it is subject to the rules relating to the assessment of effects on the environment that are laid down by the directive.

(1) OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.