ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Metherma GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-403/07) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8101 and 8102 - Shattering and breaking-up of bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ - Unwrought tungsten and molybdenum, including bars obtained simply by sintering - Waste and scrap)

(2009/C 19/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metherma GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of 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) — Change of tariff heading for tungsten or molybdenum bars obtained by sintering when the bars are shattered

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature which is laid down 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, in the version applicable in 2001, namely that deriving from Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, must be interpreted as meaning that bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ fall respectively under its subheadings 8101 91 10 and 8102 91 10. Such bars, which consist of the metals in question in their unwrought form and not of articles thereof, cannot be processed, by being broken up or shattered, into scrap falling respectively under subheadings 8101 91 90 and 8102 91 90 of that Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 283, 21.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-437/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Design and construction of a municipal tramway - Public works contract - Award by means of a procedure for the award of a public works concession - Infringement of Directive 93/37)

(2009/C 6/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Kukovec, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and Articles 7 and 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Infringement of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination — Public works carried out by means of ‘project financing’

Operative part of the judgment

1. In so far as the Comune di l'Aquila (Municipality of Aquila) awarded a public works contract concerning the design and construction of a rubber tramway for public transport in that town by means of a procedure different to those laid down for the award of public works contracts by Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

2. The Italian Republic is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/19

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turanský

(Case C-491/07) (1)

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Concept of ‘finally disposed of’ - Decision by which a police authority orders the suspension of criminal proceedings - Decision not barring further prosecution and not having a ne bis in idem effect under national law)

(2009/C 44/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Vladimir Turanský

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Interpretation of ‘ne bis in idem’ principle — Scope — Decision by which a police authority terminates criminal proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

The ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, does not fall to be applied to a decision by which an authority of a Contracting State, after examining the merits of the case brought before it, makes an order, at a stage before the charging of a person suspected of a crime, suspending the criminal proceedings, where the suspension decision does not, under the national law of that State, definitively bar further prosecution and therefore does not preclude new criminal proceedings, in respect of the same acts, in that State.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
1.

Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, and Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste do not preclude a producer of waste mixing together items of waste covered by different codes in the list annexed to Decision 2000/532 during their temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where they are produced. However, the Member States are required to adopt measures requiring producers of waste to sort and store waste separately during its temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where it is produced, using, for that purpose, the codes from that list, if they consider such measures to be necessary to achieve the objectives laid down in the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Afton Chemical Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-517/07) (1)

(Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duty on mineral oils - Article 2(2) and (3) and Article 8(1)(a) - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 2(2), (3) and (4)(b) - Scope - Fuel additives which are mineral oils or energy products but are not used as motor fuel - National taxation regime)

(2009/C 44/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Afton Chemical Limited

Respondents: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2(3) and 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), Articles 2(3) and 4(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) and Article 3 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Mineral oils added to fuel for purposes other than increasing the power of the vehicle but not intended to be sold or used as fuel — To be taxed as motor fuel?

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(3) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, as regards the period ending on 31 December 2003, and Article 2(3) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as regards the period from 1 January to 31 October 2004, are to be interpreted as meaning that fuel additives, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are ‘mineral oils’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 92/81 or ‘energy products’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/96, but which are not intended for use, offered for sale or used as motor fuel, must be made subject to the taxation regime imposed by those directives.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-161/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of partnerships or companies on application by nationals of the new Member States - Procedure for certification of self-employed status)

(2009/C 44/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Winkler, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of businesses owned by third-country nationals, applicable also to Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish, Slovene and Slovak nationals — Obligation for all members of partnerships and for minority shareholders in limited liability companies who perform activities which are typical of a work relationship to follow a special procedure for determining the applicant's self-employed status, in the course of which they must prove their influence on the management of the business they wish to have registered in the Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring for the registration of partnerships or companies in the commercial register on application by persons who are nationals of the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 — with the exception of the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta — and are members of a partnership or have minority holdings in a limited liability company, a determination by the Arbeitsmarktservice that they are self-employed or the presentation of a work permit exemption certificate, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

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

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dietmar Klarenberg v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

(Case C-466/07) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Concept of legal transfer - Legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking - Organisational autonomy following the transfer)

(2009/C 82/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dietmar Klarenberg

Defendant: Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Applicability of Directive 2001/23/EC in the event of a legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking which integrates, into its organisational structure, the part of the business that has been transferred without preserving the latter's organisational autonomy — Concept of ‘transfer’ for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that that directive may also apply in a situation where the part of the undertaking or business transferred does not retain its organisational autonomy, provided that the functional link between the various elements of production transferred is preserved, and that that link enables the transferee to use those elements to pursue an identical or analogous economic activity, a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 8, 8.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

(Case C-318/07) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Income tax - Deduction of gifts to bodies recognised as charitable - Deduction restricted to gifts to national bodies - Gifts in kind - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation)

(2009/C 69/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hein Persche

Defendant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, Article 56 EC and Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — National legislation under which the grant of the tax advantage for gifts to bodies pursuing objectives of public interest is conditional upon the donee being established in national territory — Applicability of the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement of capital to gifts in kind, in the form of goods of daily use, made by a national of a Member State to bodies pursuing charitable objectives and having their seat in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. Where a taxpayer claims, in a Member State, the deduction for tax purposes of gifts to bodies established and recognised as charitable in another Member State, such gifts come within the compass of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the free movement of capital, even if they are made in kind in the form of everyday consumer goods.

2. Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which, as regards gifts made to bodies recognised as having charitable status, the benefit of a deduction for tax purposes is allowed only in respect of gifts made to bodies established in that Member State, without any possibility for the taxpayer to show that a gift made to a body established in another Member State satisfies the requirements imposed by that legislation for the grant of such a benefit.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-275/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - External Community transit - TIR Carnets - Customs duties - Own resources of the Communities - Making available - Time-limits - Default interest - Accounting rules)

2009/C 113/10

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms, M. Velardo and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and G. Albenzio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 8 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and Article 6(2)(a) thereof, replaced as from 30 May 2000 by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p.1) — Accounting rules — Default interest due for late payment of own resources

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

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

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-556/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Common Fisheries Policy - Regulation (EC) No 894/97 - Drift net - Definition - ‘Thonaille’ fishing net - Prohibition for the fishing of certain species - Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93 and (EC) No 2371/2002 - Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure respect of that prohibition)

2009/C 102/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik and T. van Rijn, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common Fisheries Policy — Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy — Acceptance by national authorities of the thonaille (a tuna gillnet) despite the Community prohibition of drift nets of a length greater than or equal to 2.5 km — Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure respect of that prohibition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1) declares that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and supervise fishing activities in the light of the prohibition of drift nets for the capture of certain species, and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those responsible for infringements of the Community legislation on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic failed in its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998 and Articles 23(1) and (2), 24 and 25(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy;

(2) orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37 of 9.2.2008.
4.

Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004, which, unlike an earlier rule of domestic law such as Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920, (i) no longer provides for fixed-term employment contracts to be recognised as contracts of indefinite duration where abuse arises from the use of such contracts in the public sector, or which makes such recognition subject to certain cumulative and restrictive conditions, and (ii) excludes from the benefit of the protection measures provided workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract, where — which it is for the national court to ascertain — such amendments relate to a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract or are offset by the adoption of measures to prevent the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement. However, the implementation of the Framework Agreement by national legislation such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004 cannot have the effect of reducing the protection previously applicable, under the domestic legal order, to fixed-term workers to a level below that set by the minimum protective provisions laid down by the Framework Agreement. In particular, compliance with clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement requires that such legislation should provide, in respect of the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, effective and binding measures to prevent such misuse and penalties which are sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that those preventive measures are fully effective. It is therefore for the referring court to establish that those conditions are fulfilled.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

(Case C-544/07) (1)

(Article 18 EC - Income tax legislation - Reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid in the Member State of taxation - Refusal of reduction by the amount of contributions paid in other Member States)

2009/C 141/24

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzi Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and of Article 39(1) and (2) EC — National legislation on income tax limiting the right to deduct health insurance contributions from that tax to contributions paid solely in the Member State concerned

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) EC precludes legislation of a Member State which makes the granting of a right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid conditional on payment of those contributions in that Member State on the basis of national law and results in the refusal to grant such a tax advantage where the contributions liable to be deducted from the amount of income tax due in that Member State have been paid under the compulsory health insurance scheme of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.