ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-334/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Union’s own resources - Refusal to make available to the Union own resources corresponding to certain unlawful customs authorisations - Force majeure - Fraudulent conduct by the customs authorities - Liability of the Member States - Lawfulness of the entry of established entitlements in a separate account)

2010/C 234/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 10 EC, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 253, p. 42), and Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 11) — Refusal to make available to the Communities the own resources corresponding to certain irregular customs authorisations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to place at the disposal of the Commission the own resources corresponding to the customs debt deriving from the issue by the Direzione Compartimentale delle Dogane per le Regioni Puglia e Basilicata, located in Bari, as from 27 February 1997, of irregular authorisations to create and operate Type C customs bonded warehouses in Taranto, followed by consecutive authorisations for processing under customs control and to use the inward processing procedure, until their revocation on 4 December 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources and Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of 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;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Sinergie sas di Rech & C., Impresa individuale Forato Giovanni, Forato srl, Giglio srl, Impresa individuale Rech Emanuele, Ivo Colomberotto, Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura — AVEPA, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Agrirocca di Rech Emanuele, Asolat di Rech Emanuele & C.

(Case C-375/08) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 - Community financial aid concerning special premiums for male bovine animals and payments for extensification - Conditions for granting - Calculation of the stocking density on the holding - Meaning of ‘available forage area’ - Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 and Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - National legislation making the grant of Community financial aid conditional upon production of a valid legal document attesting to the right to use the areas under forage)

2010/C 221/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Parties in the main proceedings

Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Sinergie sas di Rech & C., Impresa individuale Forato Giovanni, Forato srl, Giglio srl, Impresa individuale Rech Emanuele, Ivo Colomberotto, Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura — AVEPA, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Agrirocca di Rech Emanuele, Asolat di Rech Emanuele & C.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Treviso — Interpretation of Council Regulation No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21) — Meaning of ‘forage area’ — National legislation making, in the absence of an ownership right, the grant of Community financial aid conditional upon production of a valid legal document attesting to the right to use the areas under forage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Community legislation — and, in particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal — does not make the eligibility of an application for special premiums for male bovine animals or payments for extensification conditional upon the production of a valid legal document attesting to the aid applicant’s right to use the forage areas to which the application relates. However, subject to compliance with the objectives pursued by the Community legislation, as well as the general principles of Community law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality, the Community legislation does not preclude Member States from imposing, under their national legislation, a requirement to produce such a document.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-222/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC (‘Universal Service’ Directive) - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Article 12 - Costing of universal service obligations - Social component of universal service - Article 13 - Financing of universal service obligations - Determination of whether an ‘unfair burden’ exists)

2010/C 328/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and M. Jacobs, Agents, assisted by S. Depré, lawyer)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 12(1), 13(1) and Annex IV, Part I, 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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Social component of universal service — Designation of undertakings — Provision of particular tariff conditions — Lack of transparency

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, — first, by failing to take into consideration, in the calculation of the net cost of provision of the social component of universal service, the market benefits, including intangible benefits, accruing to the undertakings responsible, and — second, by making a general finding on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the erstwhile sole provider of universal service that all undertakings now responsible for the provision of universal service are in fact subject to an unfair burden on account of that provision and by having done so without carrying out a specific assessment both of the net cost which the provision of universal service represents for each operator concerned and of all the characteristics particular to each operator, including the quality of its equipment or its economic and financial situation,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 13(1) 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. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay two thirds of the costs and orders the European Commission to pay one third of the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Elisabeth Brouwer

(Case C-577/08) (1)

(Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Frontier workers - Calculation of pensions)

2010/C 246/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Defendant: Elisabeth Brouwer

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — National legislation providing for notional and flat-rate daily wages that are lower for women than for men when calculating retirement pensions for salaried frontier workers

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, precludes national legislation under which, for the years 1984 to 1994, the calculation of old-age and retirement pensions for female frontier workers, concerning equal work or work of equal value, was based on notional and/or flat-rate daily wages lower than those for male frontier workers.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV

(Case C-120/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 510/2006 - Temporal application - Article 14 - Registration in accordance with the simplified procedure - Relations between trade marks and protected geographical indications)

2011/C 63/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bavaria NV

Defendant: Bayerischer Brauerbund eV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(b) and Article 14(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12), and of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 2001 L 182, p. 3) — Conflict between a protected geographical indication, registered in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (here, ‘Bayerisches Bier’) and an international trade mark (here, a mark including the word ‘Bavaria’)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs is applicable for resolving the conflict between a name validly registered as a protected geographical indication in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of that regulation and a trade mark corresponding to one of the situations referred to in Article 13 of that regulation relating to the same type of product, the application for registration of which was submitted both before the registration of that name and before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 692/2003 of 8 April 2003 amending Regulation No 2081/92. The date of the entry into force of the registration of that name constitutes the reference date for the purposes of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force the national marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Grasalva, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003, under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-53/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Civil-law notaries - Nationality condition - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directives 89/48/EEC and 2005/36/EC)

2011/C 204/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, M. Aufner and G. Holley, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Kemper, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, C. Herma and D. Lutostańska, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 45 EC — Failure to transpose, as regards the profession of notary, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — National legislation making the exercise of the profession of notary subject to the condition of nationality — Concept of ‘activity connected with the exercise of official authority’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality condition for access to the profession of notary, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Austria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-12/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/17/EC - Technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 11/11

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/17;

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 07.03.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition

(Case C-1/09) (1)

(State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Unlawful aid declared compatible with the common market - Annulment of the Commission decision - National courts - Application for recovery of unlawfully implemented aid - Proceedings stayed pending the adoption of a new Commission decision - Exceptional circumstances liable to limit the obligation to repay)

2010/C 113/18

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

Defendant: Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — State aid — Export aid in the book trade — Obligation to repay aid unlawfully put into effect — Possibility of suspending repayment of the aid pending a final decision of the Commission on the compatibility of the aid with the Treaty — Admissibility of the obligation to repay the aid being limited on the ground of an exceptional circumstance

Operative part of the judgment

1. A national court before which an application has been brought, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, for repayment of unlawful State aid may not stay the adoption of its decision on that application until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled on the compatibility of the aid with the common market following the annulment of a previous positive decision;

2. The adoption by the Commission of the European Communities of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible with the common market, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, is not, in itself, capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient’s obligation to repay that aid, in the case where that aid was implemented contrary to Article 88(3) EC.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-259/09) (1)

(Management of waste from extractive industries - Failure to transpose or to communicate national transposition measures)

2010/C 80/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and P. Van den Wyngaert, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 de Barcelona — Spain) — Axel Walz v Clickair S.A.

(Case C-63/09) (1)

(Air transport - Montreal Convention - Liability of carriers in respect of checked baggage - Article 22(2) - Limits of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage - Concept of ‘damage’ - Material and non-material damage)

2010/C 179/15

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Axel Walz

Defendant: Clickair S.A.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 (Barcelona) — Interpretation of Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), (Council Decision 2001/539/EC, OJ 2001 L 194, p. 39) — Jurisdiction of the Court — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1) — Air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air — Limit of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage — Material and non-material damage

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘damage’, which underpins Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, that sets the limit of an air carrier’s liability for the damage resulting, inter alia, from the loss of baggage, must be interpreted as including both material and non-material damage.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.