ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Zoi Chatzi v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

(Case C-149/10) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Interpretation of clause 2.1 of the framework agreement - Person granted the right to parental leave - Parental leave in the event of the birth of twins - Meaning of ‘birth’ - Taking account of the number of children born - Principle of equal treatment)

2010/C 301/04

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zoi Chatzi

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Thessalonikis — Interpretation of clause 2.1 of the framework agreement on parental leave annexed to Council Directive 96/34/ΕC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4), in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) — Parental leave granted in the event of the birth of twins — Grant of a single period of parental leave in the event of the birth of twins — Infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of birth and a restriction on the right of twins that is not permitted by the principle of proportionality?

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, cannot be interpreted as conferring an individual right to parental leave on the child.

2. Clause 2.1 of the framework agreement is not to be interpreted as requiring the birth of twins to confer entitlement to a number of periods of parental leave equal to the number of children born. However, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment, this clause obliges the national legislature to establish a parental leave regime which, according to the situation obtaining in the Member State concerned, ensures that the parents of twins receive treatment that takes due account of their particular needs. It is incumbent upon national courts to determine whether the national rules meet that requirement and, if necessary, to interpret those national rules, so far as possible, in conformity with European Union law.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany)) — Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz

(Case C-491/10 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Parental responsibility - Rights of custody - Child abduction - Article 42 - Enforcement of a certified judgment ordering the return of a child handed down by a (Spanish) court with jurisdiction - Power of the requested (German) court to refuse enforcement of that judgment in a case of serious infringement of the child’s rights)

2011/C 63/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Celle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga

Defendant: Simone Pelz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Celle — Interpretation of Article 42 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 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Abduction of a child — Enforcement of a decision ordering the return of a child taken by a (Spanish) court having jurisdiction — Power of the (German) court responsible for enforcement to refuse to enforce that decision where there has been a serious infringement of the rights of the child

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the court with jurisdiction in the Member State of enforcement cannot oppose the enforcement of a certified judgment, ordering the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed, on the ground that the court of the Member State of origin which handed down that judgment may have infringed Article 42 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, interpreted in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the assessment of whether there is such an infringement falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
1.

declares that, by having failed to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the directive not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific European Union legislation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-51/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for registration of the sign ‘1000’ as a mark in respect of brochures, periodicals and newspapers - Allegedly descriptive character of that sign - Criteria for the application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation on OHIM to take into account its previous decision-making practice)

2011/C 139/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 August 2006 in Case R 447/2006-4 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘1000’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 28 and 41 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt — Sweden) — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

(Case C-30/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 10(c) - National provision - Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims - Exclusion of persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it)

2011/C 103/13

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Linköpings tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lotta Andersson

Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Linköpings tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 10(c) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — National legislation excluding from the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which excludes an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims on the ground that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had a considerable influence on its activities.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
1.

Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) (Seventeenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), as amended by Directive 2007/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer in a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dB(A), measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors, fails to fulfil the obligations resulting from that Directive by simply providing the workers with such hearing protectors so that the daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dB(A), as that employer is obliged to implement a programme of technical or organisational measures intended to reduce such noise exposure to a level of less than 85 dB(A), measured without taking into account the effect of the individual hearing protectors.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-200/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract relating to Community support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme - Termination of the contract by the Commission - Reimbursement of eligible costs - Grounds of the judgment of the General Court)

2011/C 186/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and by D. Philippe and M. Gouden, avocats)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action based on an arbitration clause for an order for payment by the Commission of (i) amounts allegedly owing to the appellant and (ii) damages, following termination of a contract in respect of the Community financial support granted to the ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (‘EEBO’) project (Contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873), concluded in the context of the multiannual Community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society (‘eContent’ programme)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to rule on the claim of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE that, notwithstanding the termination of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract, the Commission should be ordered to pay it the amount of EUR 172 588,62, corresponding to the costs not already reimbursed by the Commission which were incurred by the appellant in connection with that contract;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on that claim of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Intercommunale Intermosane SCRL, Fédération de l’industrie et du gaz v État belge

(Case C-361/10) (1)

(Internal market - Technical standards and regulations - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and rules on Information Society services - Minimum safety requirements for certain old electrical installations at places of work)

2011/C 226/13

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Intercommunale Intermosane SCRL, Fédération de l’industrie et du gaz

Defendant: État belge

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 1(11) and the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) — Procedure for the provision of information and rules on information society services — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations — Minimum safety requirements for certain old electrical installations at places of work

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not amount to technical regulations, within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be the subject of the communication provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-309/10) (1)

(Sugar - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Article 11 - Revenue surplus in the restructuring fund - Assignment to the EAGF - Principle of conferral and principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Unjust enrichment)

2011/C 298/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) — Levying of a temporary restructuring amount in a situation in which the temporary restructuring fund shows a considerable surplus and there appears to be no prospect of an increase in financing requirements — Equivalent to introduction of a general tax — Infringement of the principle of conferred powers

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy is to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary amount must be raised in full, even if there were to be a revenue surplus in the temporary restructuring fund.

2. The examination of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg, Germany) — Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz v Finanzamt Stuttgart III

(Case C-240/10) (1)

(Free movement of persons - Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union - Income tax - Taking into account expatriation allowances in calculating a tax rate applicable to other revenue applying a progressive tax scale - Taking into account allowances granted to civil servants of another Member State exercising their functions on national territory - Disregarding allowances granted to national civil servants exercising their functions outside national territory - Comparability)

2011/C 319/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz

Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart III

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Articles 18, 21 and 45 TFEU — National income tax provisions exempting expatriation allowances granted to taxpayers employed by a legal person governed by public law and pertaining to a State-funded salary — Lack of such exemption with regard to allowances paid to taxpayers employed on national territory by a legal person governed by public law of another Member State and pertaining to a salary funded by that other State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as Paragraph 3(64) of the Law on income tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), according to which allowances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, granted to a civil servant of a Member State working in another Member State in order to compensate for a loss of purchasing power at the place of secondment, are not taken into account in determining the tax rate applicable in the first Member State to the other income of the taxpayer or of his spouse, whereas equivalent allowances granted to a civil servant of that other Member State working on the territory of the first Member State are taken into account for the purposes of determining that tax rate.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium)) — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin, Jo Goossens

(Case C-140/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 - Interpretation of Articles 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27, 94 and 104 - Principle of exhaustion of Community plant variety rights - Licensing contract - Action for infringement against a third party - Infringement of the licensing contract by the person enjoying the right of exploitation in his contractual relationship with the third party)

2011/C 362/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV

Defendants: Jean Hustin, Jo Goossens

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 11(1), 13(1)(2) and (3), 16, 27, 94 and 104 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 38) — Civil law actions — Proceedings brought by the holder of a Community plant variety right or a licence holder against an individual who has, in relation to harvested material of the protected variety acquired from an individual holding an exploitation right, taken certain measures in contravention of the limits prescribed in the licence agreement concluded with the holder of those rights.

Operative part of the judgment

1. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 94 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27 and 104 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the holder or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against a third party which has obtained material through another person enjoying the right of exploitation who has contravened the conditions or limitations set out in the licensing contract that that other person concluded at an earlier stage with the holder to the extent that the conditions or limitations in question relate directly to the essential features of the Community plant variety right concerned. It is for the referring court to make that assessment.

2. It is of no significance for the assessment of the infringement that the third party which effected the acts on the material sold or disposed of was aware or was deemed to be aware of the conditions or limitations imposed in the licensing contract.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.