ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling) from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — BVBA Van Landeghem v Belgische Staat

(Case C-486/06) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8703 and 8704 - Pick-up type motor vehicle)

(2008/C 22/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BVBA Van Landeghem

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) — Interpretation of Council Regulation No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the common customs tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Headings 8703 and 8704 — Classification of a ‘pick-up’ motor vehicle with an enclosed cabin for use as a passenger compartment and a load space not higher than 50 cm, a luxurious interior, ABS braking system, 4 to 8 litre petrol engine, four-wheel drive and luxurious sports rims

Operative part of the judgment

Pick-ups such as those at issue in the main proceedings which consist, on the one hand, of an enclosed cabin for use as a passenger compartment, there being, behind the driver's seat, folding or removable seats with three-point safety belts, and, on the other hand, of a load space which is separated from the cabin, is not higher than 50 centimetres, can be opened only at the rear and has no facilities for attaching a load, which have a luxurious full-option interior (including electrically adjustable leather seats, electrically operated mirrors and windows and a stereo with a CD player), and which are equipped with an anti-lock braking system (ABS), an automatic, 4 to 8-litre, very high-consumption petrol engine, four-wheel drive and luxurious (sports) rims, must be classified, according to their general appearance and the entirety of their characteristics, under heading 8703 of the Combined Nomenclature as set out in 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 the annexes to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3115/94 of 20 December 1994, Commission Regulation (EC) No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-387/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Telecommunications sector - Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Framework’ Directive) - Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Access’ Directive) - Electronic communications networks and services - Fixed and mobile telephone networks - Termination of calls - Incoming traffic - Limit on the powers of the national authority for communications regulation)

(2008/C 64/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and M. Shotter, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of France to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-2/06) (1)

(Export of cattle - Export refunds - Final administrative decision - Interpretation of a judgment of the Court - Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision - Review and withdrawal - Time-limits - Legal certainty - Principle of cooperation - Article 10 EC)

(2008/C 79/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Willy Kempter KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 10 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837 — Review and amendment by an administrative body of an administrative decision by it that has become final in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant Community provision given in the meantime in a judgment of the Court although the person to whom the decision was addressed had not relied on infringement of that provision at the time of the initial judicial proceedings and lodged its application for review only 19 months after that judgment was delivered

Operative part of the judgment

1. In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal action under domestic law which he brought against that decision.

2. Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final. The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable time-limits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.
2)

The combined provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2000/78 preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which, after the death of his life partner, the surviving partner does not receive a survivor's benefit equivalent to that granted to a surviving spouse, even though, under national law, life partnership places persons of the same sex in a situation comparable to that of spouses so far as concerns that survivor's benefit. It is for the referring court to determine whether a surviving life partner is in a situation comparable to that of a spouse who is entitled to the survivor's benefit provided for under the occupational pension scheme managed by the Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

(Case C-361/06) (1)

(Plant protection products - Authorisation to place on the market - Ethofumesate - Directives 91/414/EEC and 2002/37/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 - Application for reopening of the oral procedure)

(2008/C 171/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG

Defendant: College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

Intervener: Agrichem BV

Re:

Preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active substance (OJ 2002 L 117, p. 10) — Obligation on Member States to withdraw, before 1 September 2003, authorisation for any product containing ethofumesate in the case where the authorisation holder does not have, or does not have access to, a dossier satisfying the conditions set out in Annex II 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

Article 4(1) of Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active substance must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to terminate, before 1 September 2003, the authorisation of a plant protection product containing ethofumesate on the ground that the holder of that authorisation does not hold, or have access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
9.

Regulation No 2887/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that, during the procedure supervising the pricing for unbundled access to the local loop conducted by a national regulatory authority pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation, it is for the notified operator to provide the evidence that its rates respect the principle that rates are to be set on the basis of cost-orientation. On the other hand, it is for the Member States to allocate the burden of proof between the national regulatory authority which made the decision to authorise the rates of the notified operator and the beneficiary challenging that decision. It is also for the Member States to establish, in accordance with their rules of procedure and the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence of judicial protection, the rules on the allocation of that burden of proof when a decision of the national regulatory authority authorising the rates of a notified operator for unbundled access to its local loop is challenged before the courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-226/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/391/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work - Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) - Defective transposition)

(2008/C 183/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon — Greece) — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-472/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-473/06), Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06) v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE

(Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06) (1)

(Article 82 EC - Abuse of dominant position - Pharmaceutical products - Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports - Ordinary orders)

(2008/C 301/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Efetio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-472/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-473/06), Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06)

Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Efetio Athinon — Interpretation of Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position — Refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully orders placed by pharmaceutical wholesalers, with the intention of limiting their export activity and, consequently, the harm caused to it by parallel trade

Operative part of the judgment

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking occupying a dominant position on the relevant market for medicinal products which, in order to put a stop to parallel exports carried out by certain wholesalers from one Member State to other Member States, refuses to meet ordinary orders from those wholesalers, is abusing its dominant position. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the orders are ordinary in the light of both the size of those orders in relation to the requirements of the market in the first Member State and the previous business relations between that undertaking and the wholesalers concerned.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law

(Case C-303/06) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3) and 3(1)(c) - Direct discrimination on grounds of disability - Harassment related to disability - Dismissal of an employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is disabled - Included - Burden of proof)

(2008/C 223/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S. Coleman

Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2(2)(a) and 2(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Scope of the term ‘disability’ — Possibility of extending it to a person who is closely associated with a disabled person and has been discriminated against by reason of that association — Employee bringing up a disabled child on her own

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).

2. Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3).

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.
—

Where the duration of transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals is less than the maximum duration of 28 hours, a period of transport by road can begin immediately after the animals are unloaded at the port of destination. In order to calculate the duration of that period, the duration of the period of transport by road which preceded transport by roll on/roll-off ferry should be taken into account, unless a rest period of at least 24 hours, in application of point 48.5 of the annex to Directive 91/628, has neutralised the period of transport by road preceding the transport by sea. It is for the national court to ascertain whether, in the dispute in the main proceedings, the journey at issue meets the abovementioned conditions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-66/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Consent given without an assessment)

(2009/C 6/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Simonetti and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, F. Louis, avocat, and C. O'Daly, Solicitor)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, J. Connolly SC and G. Simons BL)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(2) and 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Consent given without an assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment that belong to the categories of projects covered by point 1(a) to (c) and (f) of Annex II to that directive are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

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

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

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v T. Sahin

(Case C-242/06) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Introduction of administrative charges for obtaining a residence permit in the host Member State - Infringement of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)

2009/C 267/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

Defendant: T. Sahin

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 concerning the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1) — Obligation to pay administrative charges for the processing of the application for extension of a residence permit — Application not lodged in good time

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as precluding the introduction, from the entry into force of that decision in the Member State concerned, of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the granting of a residence permit or an extension of the period of validity thereof conditional on payment of administrative charges, where the amount of those charges payable by Turkish nationals is disproportionate as compared with the amount required from Community nationals.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.