ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — ACEA SpA v Iride Spa, formerly AEM SpA, European Commission

(Case C-319/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 49/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: ACEA SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, A. Giardina and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents), Iride SpA, formerly AEM Spa (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola, T. Ubaldi and A. Santa Maria, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-297/02 ACEA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

2. Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

4. Orders Iride SpA to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merck KGaA

(Case C-84/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word sign ‘Kids Vits’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS - Level of attention of the relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Right to be heard)

2011/C 80/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. E. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Merck KGaA

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 in Case T-484/08 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Merck (Kids Vits) in which the General Court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008, refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Kids Vits’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 5, by upholding the opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘VITS4KIDS’ — Infringement of the right to a judicial hearing — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.04.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-365/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)

2011/C 152/15

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: N. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) and of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1) — Failure to take the measures necessary in order that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air should not exceed the limit values fixed

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, for the years 2005 to 2007, by exceeding the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

2. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — David Claes v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA, in liquidation

(Joined Cases C-235/10 to C-239/10) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - Immediate termination of employment contracts following a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding up of a legal person - No consultation of employees’ representatives - Equivalence of employer and liquidator)

2011/C 130/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: David Claes (C-235/10), Sophie Jeanjean (C-236/10), Miguel Rémy (C-237/10), Volker Schneider (C-238/10), Xuan-Mai Tran (C-239/10)

Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA, in liquidation

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Provisions of national law providing for the immediate termination of employment contracts following a judicial declaration of insolvency as a result of termination of activities — No consultation of employees’ representatives before such redundancies — Assimilation of liquidator in insolvency and the employer

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 1 to 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as applying to a termination of the activities of an employing establishment as a result of a judicial decision ordering its dissolution and winding up on grounds of insolvency, even though, in the event of such a termination, national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect.

2. Until the legal personality of an establishment whose dissolution and winding up have been ordered has ceased to exist, the obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59 must be fulfilled. The employer’s obligations pursuant to those provisions must be carried out by the management of the establishment in question, where it is still in place, even with limited powers of management over that establishment, or by its liquidator, where that establishment’s management has been taken over in its entirety by the liquidator.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-423/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification for customs purposes - Electrical connectors - Subheading 8536 69 - Plugs and sockets)

2011/C 204/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delphi Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1) — Electrical connectors, intended to be crimped to the ends of electric wire and housed in plastic casing in order to join two cables — Classification under subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature 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 with respect to 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that electrical connectors, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are not excluded from that subheading on the ground that they do not ensure the insulation of the connection at the connection point or that they represent only some of the plugs and sockets manufactured subsequently, provided that they permit multi-way connection, for instance between appliances, cables and connector boards, simply by plugging the attached plugs into the attached sockets with no assembly work required.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-206/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(1)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(2) - German Länder benefits for the blind, the deaf and the disabled - Residence qualification)

2011/C 186/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Noort, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) and of Article 4(1)(a), in conjunction with Title III, Chapter 1, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — National legislation making the grant of benefits by the Länder to the disabled and the blind conditional upon the recipient being resident in the Land in question — Benefits referred to in Annex II, Section III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Concept of ‘special non-contributory benefit’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by making the grant of benefits for the blind, the deaf and the disabled under Länder legislation conditional, in respect of persons for whom the Federal Republic of Germany is the competent Member State, upon a condition of residence or habitual residence in the Land concerned, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, in conjunction with Title III, Chapter 1 of that regulation, and under Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;

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

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
1.

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex must be interpreted as meaning that it does not entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that his application was not accepted because of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, to information held by the course provider on the qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question, in order that he may establish ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’ in accordance with that provision. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that a refusal of disclosure by the defendant, in the context of establishing such facts, could risk compromising the achievement of the objective pursued by that directive and thus depriving Article 4(1) thereof in particular of its effectiveness. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-10/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions - Deductibility limited to gifts to institutions established in national territory)

2011/C 232/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 56 EC and of Article 40 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — National rules which make the granting of the tax advantage provided for donations to research and public-education establishments subject to the condition that the beneficiary of the donation is established within the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by authorising the deduction from tax of gifts to research and teaching institutions exclusively where those institutions are established in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — proceedings brought by Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

(Case C-350/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) - Exemptions - Transfers and payments - Transactions in securities - Electronic messaging services for financial institutions)

2011/C 298/16

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions for banking transactions — SWIFT services for banks

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax under that provision does not cover electronic messaging services for financial institutions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/17

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission

(Case C-459/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for a training project concerning certain jobs in the new DHL centre at Leipzig-Halle airport - Action for annulment against the decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market - Examination of the need for the aid - Failure to take into account the incentive effects of the aid and its positive external effects on the choice of the site)

2011/C 269/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt (represented by: A. Rosenfeld, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action seeking partial annulment of Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 regarding the State aid which Germany intends to grant to DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31) — Aid for training — Decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market — Incorrect examination of the need for the aid — Disregard of the positive external effects of the aid and of its incentive effects on the choice of the site

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismissses the appeal;

2. Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — ‘DP grup’ EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

(Case C-138/10) (1)

(Customs union - Customs declaration - Acceptance by the customs authorities of that declaration - Invalidation of a customs declaration which has already been accepted - Consequences for penal measures)

2011/C 319/10

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘DP grup’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Articles 4(5), 8(1), first indent, 62, 63 and 68 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Acceptance by the customs authority of a customs declaration made in writing by the person liable to pay duty — Treatment of such acceptance as equivalent to an administrative decision open to judicial review — Acceptance of the declaration on a provisional basis pending definitive verification of the information provided therein by means of an expert report for the purpose of confirming the tariff code — Delimitation of the review conducted by the customs authority at the time of that verification

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union law in customs matters must be interpreted as meaning that a declarant cannot request a court to annul a customs declaration made by it when that declaration has been accepted by the customs authorities. By contrast, under the conditions laid down in Article 66 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, that declarant may request those authorities to invalidate that declaration, even after they have released the goods. At the conclusion of their assessment, the customs authorities must, subject to the possibility of a court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or proceed with the invalidation requested.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V.

(Case C-34/10) (1)

(Directive 98/44/EC - Article 6(2)(c) - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Extraction of precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells - Patentability - Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ - Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘use for industrial or commercial purposes’)

2011/C 362/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oliver Brüstle

Defendant: Greenpeace e.V.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13) — Extraction, for the purposes of scientific research, of precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells taken from a blastocyst, which is no longer capable of developing into a human being — Exclusion from patentability of that process as ‘use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’? — Concept of ‘human embryos’ and ‘uses for industrial or commercial purposes’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that: — any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ‘human embryo’; — it is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of scientific developments, whether a stem cell obtained from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage constitutes a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44.

2. The exclusion from patentability concerning the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes set out in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 also covers the use of human embryos for purposes of scientific research, only use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which is applied to the human embryo and is useful to it being patentable.

3. Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 excludes an invention from patentability where the technical teaching which is the subject-matter of the patent application requires the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material, whatever the stage at which that takes place and even if the description of the technical teaching claimed does not refer to the use of human embryos.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.