ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/15

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against E, F

(Case C-550/09) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Articles 2 and 3 - Inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities implicated in acts of terrorism - Transfer to an organisation, by members of that organisation, of funds originating from the collection of donations and the sale of publications)

2010/C 234/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties in the main proceedings

E, F

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) — Challenge, before the national court, to the validity of a Council decision including an organisation on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of that regulation, where the decision has not been contested by the organisation in question — Scope of the regulation’s provisions prohibiting economic resources from being made available to an organisation included on the list — Transfer of economic resources within the organisation by persons forming part of it

Operative part of the judgment

1. In respect of the period prior to 29 June 2007, the inclusion of Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi (DHKP-C) on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism is illegal and, accordingly, can form no part of the basis for a criminal conviction linked to an alleged infringement of that regulation.

2. Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation No 2580/2001 must be interpreted as covering the transfer to a legal person, group or entity on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of that regulation, by a member of that legal person, group or entity, of funds and other financial assets or economic resources collected or obtained from third persons.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — József Uzonyi v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-133/09) (1)

(Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 143ba - Separate sugar payment - Grant - Decision of the new Member States - Conditions - Objective and non-discriminatory criteria)

2010/C 317/16

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fövárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: József Uzonyi

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 — Obligation on Member States to grant a separate sugar payment on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria — National legislation reserving that payment to producers holding a supply contract for sugar beet concluded directly with a sugar refinery

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an integrátor which does have such rights, although those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet direct to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi

(Case C-205/09) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Meaning of ‘victim’ - Legal persons - Mediation in criminal proceedings - Detailed rules of application)

2010/C 346/23

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság

Parties in the main proceedings

Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(a) and Article 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Criminal proceedings in which the victim is a legal person and in which mediation in criminal cases is excluded by national law — Concept of ‘victim’ in the framework decision — Inclusion, as regards the provisions on mediation in criminal cases, of persons other than natural persons? — Conditions for the application of mediation in criminal proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby rules:

1. Articles 1(a) and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘victim’ does not extend to legal persons for the purposes of the promotion of mediation in criminal proceedings in Article 10(1).

2. Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make recourse to mediation possible for all offences the substantive components of which, as defined by national legislation, correspond essentially to those of offences for which mediation is expressly provided by that legislation.

(1) OJ 2009 C 205, 29.08.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to correctly transpose into national law the provisions of European Union law governing the designation of universal service provider(s) and, in any event, by failing to ensure in practice that those provisions are applied, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA

(Case C-142/09) (1)

(Directives 92/61/EEC and 2002/24/EC - Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles - Vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions - National legislation prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds)

2011/C 13/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde

Parties in the main proceedings

V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 12 and 15(2) of Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 92/61/EEC (OJ 2002 L 124, p. 1) — Exception in respect of vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions — National legislation disregarding that exception

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, and Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Directive 92/61 are to be construed as meaning that, where a vehicle or a component or separate technical unit thereof does not qualify for the type-approval procedure established by those directives, on the ground that it does not come within their scope, the provisions of those directives do not prevent a Member State from introducing, in its domestic law and in relation to such vehicle, component or separate technical unit, a similar mechanism for recognising the checks carried out by other Member States. In any event, such legislation must comply with EU law, in particular Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle

(Case C-243/09) (1)

(Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Fire fighters employed in the public sector - Operational service - Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) - Maximum weekly working time - Refusal to work longer than that time - Compulsory transfer to another service - Direct effect - Consequence for national courts)

2010/C 346/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Halle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Günter Fuß

Defendant: Stadt Halle

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Halle — Interpretation of Article 22(1)(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — National legislation providing, in breach of that directive, for working time of more than 48 hours during a seven-day period for officials working as on-call professional firefighters — Compulsory transfer of an official who refused to work such hours to a post at the same grade in the administration — Concept of ‘detriment’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer compulsorily to another service a worker employed as a fire fighter in an operational service on the ground that that worker has requested compliance, within the latter service, with the maximum average weekly working time laid down in that provision. The fact that such a worker suffers no specific detriment by reason of that transfer, other than that resulting from the infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, is irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-199/09) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code - Article 6(2) - Application for binding tariff information - Meaning of ‘one type of goods’)

2011/C 30/06

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘one type of goods’ — Goods differing as to quality or characteristics but capable of being classified under the same Combined Nomenclature code — Issue of a single set of binding tariff information for all those goods or specific tariff information for each one

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for binding tariff information may relate to different goods provided that these all belong to one and the same type of goods. Only goods which have similar characteristics and whose distinguishing features are completely irrelevant for the purposes of their tariff classification may be regarded as belonging to one type of goods for the purposes of that provision.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA v European Commission, Electrabel SA

(Case C-480/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid declared compatible with the common market - Condition requiring prior repayment by the beneficiary of earlier aid declared unlawful - Concept of ‘economic unit’ - Joint control by two separate parent companies - Distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application - Errors and defective reasoning)

2011/C 55/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent), Electrabel SA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 September 2009 in Case T 303/05 ACEAElectrabel Produzione SpA v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. orders Electrabel SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

(Case C-239/09) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany for the acquisition of land - Programme for land privatisation and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder in Germany)

2011/C 55/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 87 EC — State aids — Privatisation of land in the new German Länder — Purchase of that land at a price, established according to national provisions providing for the determination of the market value of the land based on regional criteria, which is lower than their market value — Compatibility of those national provisions with Article 87 EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 87 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law laying down calculation methods for determining the value of agricultural and forestry land, offered for sale by public authorities in the context of a privatisation plan, such as those laid down in Paragraph 5(1) of the Land Purchase Order (Flächenerwerbsverordnung) of 20 December 1995, to the extent that those methods provide for the updating of the prices, where prices for such land are rising sharply, so that the price actually paid by the purchaser reflects, in so far as is possible, the market value of that land.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.09.2009
1.

Declares that, by failing to provide, under its social security rules, for the possibility of acceptance of liability for costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Luxembourg Social Security Code, in the version applicable to the dispute, which are carried out in another Member State, by means of reimbursement of the costs paid for those analyses and tests, but by providing solely for a system of direct billing to sickness insurance funds, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda v Ministero della Salute

(Case C-77/09) (1)

(Plant protection products - Directive 2006/134/EC - Validity - Restrictions on the use of fenarimol as an active substance)

2011/C 63/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda

Defendant: Ministero della Salute

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Validity, as regards the limitations on the use of fenarimol as an active substance, of Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Commission Directive 2006/134/EC of 11 December 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fenarimol as active substance.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)

(Case C-34/09) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement in the territory of the Member States - Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent - Consequences of the right of residence of the minor child on the employment law requirements to be fulfilled by the third-country national ascendant relative of that minor)

2011/C 130/02

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano

Defendant: Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Grant of right of residence to a European Union citizen on the territory of the Member State of which that citizen is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement? — Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children, and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-251/09) (1)

(Public works contracts and supply contracts - Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 93/38/EEC - Contract notice - Award criteria - Equal treatment of tenderers - Principle of transparency - Directive 92/13/EEC - Review procedure - Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer)

2011/C 103/04

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra, I. Chatzigiannis and M. Patakia, agents, agents)

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: K. Likourgos and A. Patanzi-Lamprou, agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(2) and 31(1) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) — Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer — Requirement to ensure that decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible — Principles of equal treatment and transparency

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-26/07 Commission v Greece by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion that was issued by the Commission of the European Communities on 23 September 2008 pursuant to Article 228 EC, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;