ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-395/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 183/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and — Corrigendum — OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)

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 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
2.

It is on the basis of its main purpose that a plant is to be classified as an ‘incineration plant’ or a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76. It is for the competent authorities to identify that purpose on the basis of an assessment of the facts existing at the time at which that assessment is carried out. In the context of such an assessment, account must be taken, in particular, of the volume of energy generated or material products produced by the plant in question in relation to the quantity of waste incinerated in that plant and the stability and continuity of that production.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — C.A.S. SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-204/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Community Customs Code - Repayment and remission of import duty - Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey - Movement certificates - Falsification - Special situation)

(2008/C 236/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: C.A.S. SpA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and S. Schønberg, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 C.A.S. v Commission dismissing the application for partial annulment of Commission Decision REC 10/01 of 18 October 2002 relating to a claim for remission of import duties recovered post-clearance on fruit juice concentrates from Turkey imported under certificates of origin which had proved to be false in a subsequent check — Omissions and errors on the part of the Turkish authorities and the Commission capable of creating a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Distribution of the burden of proof as to the existence of a special situation — Legal classification of the documents and facts

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 CAS v Commission;

2. Annuls Article 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01);

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at both instances.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket

(Case C-291/07) (1)

(VAT - Place of taxable transactions - Place of supply for tax purposes - Service supplier established in a Member State other than that in which the customer is established - Status of taxable person - Services supplied to a national foundation carrying out both economic and non-economic activities)

(2008/C 327/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet

Defendant: Skatteverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 9(2)(e) and 21(1)(b) 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) and of Articles 56(1)(c) and 196 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National foundation which carries out both economic and other activities, using consultancy services supplied by a supplier established in another Member State in the context of its activities which do not fall within the scope of application of the Directive

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(e) 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, as amended by Council Directive 1999/59/EC of 17 June 1999, and Article 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where the customer for consultancy services supplied by a taxable person established in another Member State carries out both an economic activity and an activity which falls outside the scope of those directives, that customer is to be regarded as a taxable person even where the supply is used solely for the purposes of the latter activity.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/11

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-411/07) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 - Optocouplers)

(2008/C 301/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1) — Optical-electrical circuit that is an integral part of a machine enclosed in a plastic case containing a light emitting diode (‘LED’), a plastic film and a photodetector and amplifying circuit and is intended for incorporation in communication and computer equipment, consumer electronics and industrial machines — Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 of the CN

Operative part of the judgment

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 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that an optocoupler, regardless of whether not it contains an amplifying circuit, falls within heading 8541.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Efrosyni Alexiadou

(Case C-436/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract concerning a technological development programme relating to the production of water-repellent leather - Repayment of advance paid - Interest)

(2009/C 6/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Efrosyni Alexiadou (represented by: Ch. Matellas and E. Alexiadou, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission v Alexiadou [2007] ECR II-86, in which the Court dismissed an action under an arbitration clause seeking an order that the defendant reimburse the amount of the advance paid by the Commission under a contract concerning a technological development programme relating to the production of water-repellent leather (Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission v Alexiadou [2007], which was notified to the Commission on 18 July 2007;

2. Orders that the case be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Klaus Bourquain

(Case C-297/07) (1)

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Conviction in absentia in respect of the same acts - Concept of ‘finally disposed of’ - Procedural rules of national law - Concept of ‘penalty which can no longer be enforced’)

(2009/C 32/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Regensburg

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Klaus Bourquain

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Regensburg — 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 — Conviction in absentia in respect of same acts — No enforcement and conviction subsequently covered by general amnesty

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, is applicable to criminal proceedings instituted in a Contracting State against an accused whose trial for the same acts as those for which he faces prosecution was finally disposed of in another Contracting State, even though, under the law of the State in which he was convicted, the sentence which was imposed on him could never, on account of specific features of procedure such as those referred to in the main proceedings, have been directly enforced.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl

(Case C-486/07) (1)

(Common organisation of the markets - Cereals - Maize - Determination of price - Reductions applicable)

(2009/C 32/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 21), Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18), and of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 191, p. 76) — Reductions applicable for higher levels of humidity than that of the standard quality — Applicability to sales of maize

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies and Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2486/92 of 27 August 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale by tender of maize held by the international intervention agencies, the price reductions in relation to the moisture content laid down for durum wheat in Table II of Annex II to Regulation No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, do not apply.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Ibrahim Altun v Stadt Böblingen

(Case C-337/07) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 7, first paragraph of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of residence of a child of a Turkish worker - Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Involuntary unemployment - Applicability of that agreement to Turkish refugees - Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights)

(2009/C 44/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrahim Altun

Defendant: Stadt Böblingen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Right to stay of a Turkish national who has entered national territory as a minor for the purpose of family reunion — Criminal conviction — Effect on the right to stay — Applicability to Turkish refugees — Asylum granted to the father on the basis of false statements — Withdrawal of grant of asylum as a condition for refusal of the derived right to stay — Derived right conditional on lawful registration as belonging to the labour force of a Member State for a period of three years during which the father lives together in a household with the minor

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey is to be interpreted as meaning that the child of a Turkish worker may enjoy rights arising by virtue of that provision where, during the three-year period when the child was co-habiting with that worker, the latter was working for two and a half years before being unemployed for the following six months.

2. The fact that a Turkish worker has obtained the right of residence in a Member State and, accordingly, the right of access to the labour market of that State as a political refugee does not prevent a member of his family from enjoying the rights arising under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80.

3. The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is to be interpreted as meaning that when a Turkish worker has obtained the status of political refugee on the basis of false statements, the rights that a member of his family derives from that provision cannot be called into to question if the latter, on the date on which the residence permit issued to that worker is withdrawn, fulfils the conditions laid down therein.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/12

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

(Case C-283/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Article 1 - Concept of waste - Scrap intended for use in iron and steel activities - High-quality refuse-derived fuel - Incorrect transposition)

(2009/C 44/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Zadra and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by I. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Fiengo, Avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities — Exclusion from the scope of the national transposition law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions such as — Article 1(25) to (27) and (29)(a) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 delegating power to the government to reform, coordinate and supplement legislation in environmental matters and direct implementation measures, and — Article 1(29)(b) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 and Articles 183(1)(s) and 229(2) of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006 laying down rules in environmental matters, under which certain scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities and high-quality refuse-derived fuel (RDF-Q) respectively are excluded a priori from the scope of the Italian legislation on waste transposing Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co.

(Joined Cases C-278/07 to C-280/07) (1)

(Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Communities' financial interests - Article 3 - Recovery of an export refund - Determining the limitation period - Irregularities committed before the entry into force of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Rule on limitation forming part of the general civil law of a Member State)

(2009/C 69/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof, Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendants: Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co. (C-278/07), Vion Trading GmbH (C-279/07), Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH (C-280/07),

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and of Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Determination of the limitation period applicable to irregularities committed before the entry into force of Regulation No 2988/95 and involving recovery of an export refund

Operative part of the judgment

1) The limitation period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is applicable to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds wrongly received by the exporter as a result of irregularities it committed.

2) In situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the limitation period provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95: — applies to irregularities committed before the entry into force of that regulation; — starts to run from the date on which the irregularity at issue was committed.

3) The longer limitation periods which Member States retain the possibility of applying under Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 may result from general provisions of law predating the adoption of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
1.

Declares that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make caller location information available, to the extent technically feasible, to the authorities handling emergencies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);
2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure which, like Regulation 3 of the Regulations at issue in the main proceedings, does not contain a precise list of the aims justifying derogation from the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. However, Article 6(1) offers the option to derogate from that principle only in respect of measures justified by legitimate social policy objectives, such as those related to employment policy, the labour market or vocational training. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is consonant with such a legitimate aim and whether the national legislative or regulatory authority could legitimately consider, taking account of the Member States' discretion in matters of social policy, that the means chosen were appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim.