ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as: — not precluding the competent authorities of a Member State from refusing, pursuant to national rules which provide that a person’s surnames and forenames may be entered on the certificates of civil status of that State only in a form which complies with the rules governing the spelling of the official national language, to amend, on the birth certificate and marriage certificate of one of its nationals, the surname and forename of that person in accordance with the spelling rules of another Member State; — not precluding the competent authorities of a Member State from refusing, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings and pursuant to those same rules, to amend the joint surname of a married couple who are citizens of the Union, as it appears on the certificates of civil status issued by the Member State of origin of one of those citizens, in a form which complies with the spelling rules of that latter State, on condition that that refusal does not give rise, for those Union citizens, to serious inconvenience at administrative, professional and private levels, this being a matter which it is for the national court to decide. If that proves to be the case, it is also for that court to determine whether the refusal to make the amendment is necessary for the protection of the interests which the national rules are designed to secure and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued; — not precluding the competent authorities of a Member State from refusing, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings and pursuant to those same rules, to amend the marriage certificate of a citizen of the Union who is a national of another Member State in such a way that the forenames of that citizen are entered on that certificate with diacritical marks as they were entered on the certificates of civil status issued by his Member State of origin and in a form which complies with the rules governing the spelling of the official national language of that latter State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-522/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - Areas designated insufficient in number and size - Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility of the action)

2011/C 179/06

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania (represented by: A. Popescu, L.-E. Batagoi, M.-L. Colonescu, A.-R. Arșinel and J.S. Smaranda)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Classification as special protection areas of areas insufficient in number and size, failing in part to have regard to the sites identified in the IBA Inventory — Alteration without scientific basis

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de recours des écoles européennes) — Paul Miles and Others v European Schools

(Case C-196/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Complaints Board of the European Schools - System of remuneration of teachers seconded to the European Schools - No adjustment of remuneration following depreciation in sterling - Compatibility with Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU)

2011/C 232/06

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Chambre de recours des écoles européennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Miles, Robert Watson Mac Donald

Defendant: European Schools

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Complaints Board of the European Schools — Interpretation of Articles 12, 39 and 234 of the EC Treaty — Meaning of national court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC — Remuneration system for teachers on secondment to the European Schools — No arrangements for adapting the remuneration by reason of the pound sterling being devalued — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the freedom of movement for workers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to rule on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Complaints Board of the European Schools.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
2.

During the transitional period from 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010, provided for in Article 4 of Directive 2001/81: — Article 4(3) TEU, the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Directive 2001/81 require the Member States to refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by that directive; — adoption by the Member States of a specific measure relating to a single source of SO2 and NOx does not appear liable, in itself, seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by Directive 2001/81. It is for the national court to review whether that is true of each of the decisions granting an environmental permit for the construction and operation of an industrial installation such as the permits at issue in the main actions; — the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 6, 7(1) and (2) and 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/81 require the Member States, first, to draw up, to update and to revise as necessary programmes for the progressive reduction of national SO2 and NOx emissions, which they are obliged to make available to the public and appropriate organisations by means of clear, comprehensible and easily accessible information, and to notify to the European Commission within the time-limit prescribed, and second, to prepare and annually update national inventories of those emissions and national emission projections for 2010, which they must report to the European Commission and the European Environment Agency within the time-limit prescribed; — the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Directive 2001/81 itself do not require the Member States to refuse or to attach restrictions to the grant of an environmental permit for the construction and operation of an industrial installation such as the permits at issue in the main actions, or to adopt specific compensatory measures for each permit granted of that kind, even where the national emission ceilings for SO2 and NOx are exceeded or risk being exceeded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Michael Seeger

(Case C-554/09) (1)

(Road transport - Obligation to use recording equipment - Derogations for vehicles transporting materials - Meaning of ‘materials’ - Carriage of empty bottles in the vehicle of a wine and drinks merchant)

2011/C 298/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Party in the main proceedings

Andreas Michael Seeger

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — System of exceptions exempting, inter alia, vehicles used for carrying materials for the driver’s use in the course of his work from the obligation to have a tachograph — Applicability of that exception to the carriage of empty returnable bottles in the vehicle of a wine and drinks merchant — Meaning of ‘materials’

Operative part of the judgment

The expression ‘materials’ appearing in Article 13(1)(d), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as not covering packaging materials, such as empty bottles, carried by a wine and drinks merchant who runs a shop, makes deliveries to his customers once a week and, while doing so, collects the empty bottles to take them to his wholesaler.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France)) — Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi

(Case C-439/09) (1)

(Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Articles 2 to 4 - Competition - Restrictive practice - Selective distribution network - Cosmetics and personal care products - General and absolute ban on internet sales - Ban imposed by the supplier on authorised distributors)

2011/C 355/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS

Defendants: Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi

Intervening parties: Ministère public, European Commission

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Paris — Competition — General and absolute ban on internet sales of cosmetics and personal care products imposed by the supplier on authorised distributors in the context of a selective distribution network — Obligation to sell such products in a physical space in which a qualified pharmacist must be present — ‘Hardcore’ restriction of competition by object under Article 81(1) EC which cannot benefit from a block exemption under Commission Regulation No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Possibility of benefiting from an individual exemption under Article 81(3) EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a selective distribution system, a contractual clause requiring sales of cosmetics and personal care products to be made in a physical space where a qualified pharmacist must be present, resulting in a ban on the use of the internet for those sales, amounts to a restriction by object within the meaning of that provision where, following an individual and specific examination of the content and objective of that contractual clause and the legal and economic context of which it forms a part, it is apparent that, having regard to the properties of the products at issue, that clause is not objectively justified.

Article 4(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that the block exemption provided for in Article 2 of that regulation does not apply to a selective distribution contract which contains a clause prohibiting de facto the internet as a method of marketing the contractual products. However, such a contract may benefit, on an individual basis, from the exception provided for in Article 101(3) TFEU where the conditions of that provision are met.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
3.

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness do not preclude the reimbursement to a parent company of sums which ensure the application of the same tax regime to dividends distributed by its subsidiaries established in France and those distributed by the subsidiaries of that company established in other Member States, and subsequently redistributed by that parent company, being subject to the condition that the person liable for the tax furnish evidence which is in its sole possession and relating, with respect to each dividend concerned, in particular to the rate of taxation actually applied and the amount of tax actually paid on profits made by subsidiaries established in other Member States, whereas, with respect to subsidiaries established in France, that evidence, known to the administration, is not required. Production of that evidence may however be required only if it does not prove virtually impossible or excessively difficult to furnish evidence of payment of the tax by the subsidiaries established in the other Member States, in the light in particular of the provisions of the legislation of those Member States concerning the avoidance of double taxation, the recording of the corporation tax which must be paid and the retention of administrative documents. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are met in the case before the national court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-157/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority)

2012/C 32/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: D.J.M. de Grave and M.A.M de Ree, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: T. Mihelič, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — Access to and practice of the profession of notary — Nationality requirement — Connection with the exercise of official authority

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC.

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

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

(1) OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.
2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of an amount calculated by multiplying the basic amount of EUR 30 million by the percentage of the unlawful aid that has not yet been recovered, or not shown to have been recovered, at the end of the period concerned, compared to the total amount not yet recovered on the date of delivery of the present judgment, for every six months of delay in implementing the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 1 April 2004 in Case C-99/02 Commission v Italy, from the present judgment until compliance with the judgment of 1 April 2004;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2012 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-336/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Action for annulment - Period within which action must be brought - Point from which period starts to run - Lateness - Inadmissibility - Grounds of appeal - Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection)

2012/C 258/03

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and A. Szmytkowska, and by T. van Rijn, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission, by which it dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8) — Date from which the period for bringing an action for annulment begins to run — Erroneous interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the EEC (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59) — Breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of the principles of solidarity and good faith — Procedural irregularities resulting from the Court of First Instance’s refusal to hear the pleas linked to the breach of those principles

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

1. The order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission is set aside.

2. The case is referred back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the form of order submitted by the Republic of Poland seeking annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union.

3. The costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 — Council of the European Union (C-191/09 P), European Commission (C-200/09 P) v Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT

(Joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Anti-dumping duties - Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(10)(i), Article 3(2), (3) and (5) to (7), Article 18(3) and Article 19(3) - Calculation of the normal value and of the injury - ‘Single economic entity’ - Rights of the defence - No statement of reasons)

2012/C 98/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: H.van Vliet and C. Clyne, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT, European Commission (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, avocat, N. Mizulin, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2009 in Case T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT) v Council of the European Union, annulling Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 of 27 June 2006 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 2320/97 and (EC) No 348/2000 (OJ 2006 L 175, p. 4)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal of the Council of the European Union;

2. Dismisses the main appeal of the European Commission;

3. Dismisses the cross-appeal of Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT);

4. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
1.

The concept of ‘habitual residence’, for the purposes of Articles 8 and 10 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 meaning that such residence corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment. To that end, where the situation concerned is that of an infant who has been staying with her mother only a few days in a Member State — other than that of her habitual residence — to which she has been removed, the factors which must be taken into consideration include, first, the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay in the territory of that Member State and for the mother’s move to that State and, second, with particular reference to the child’s age, the mother’s geographic and family origins and the family and social connections which the mother and child have with that Member State. It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances of fact specific to each individual case. If the application of the abovementioned tests were, in the case in the main proceedings, to lead to the conclusion that the child’s habitual residence cannot be established, which court has jurisdiction would have to be determined on the basis of the criterion of the child’s presence, under Article 13 of the Regulation.
1.

Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures to correctly transpose the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) 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 Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;