ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/11

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

(Case C-490/08) (1)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2005/68/EC - Reinsurance - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

2009/C 205/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC or, in any event, by not communicating those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.
1.

Declares that, by not amending Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002, laying down a prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of that law, on the installation and operation on all public or private premises, apart from casinos, of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, in accordance with Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 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, the Hellenic Republic has not taken all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 October 2006 in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

(Case C-5/08) (1)

(Copyright - Information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 and 5 - Literary and artistic works - Concept of ‘reproduction’ - Reproduction ‘in part’ - Reproduction of short extracts of literary works - Newspaper articles - Temporary and transient reproductions - Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out)

2009/C 220/10

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Infopaq International A/S

Defendant: Danske Dagblades Forening

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Company the principal activity of which consists in drawing up summaries of newspaper articles by means of scanning — Storage of an extract from an article consisting of a search word and the five words both preceding and following it — Temporary acts of reproduction

Operative part of the judgment

1. An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination;

2. The act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-100/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Legislation on the keeping and marketing of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States)

2009/C 267/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, acting as Agent, G. Van Calster, avocat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Prohibition to keep certain birds legally brought to the market in other Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC by — making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the market legally in other Member States subject to restrictive conditions that require the market participants concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to comply with the special Belgian legislative requirements, and failing to recognise the marking accepted in other Member States or certificates issued in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; and — denying traders the possibility to receive exemptions from the prohibition to keep indigenous European birds which were brought to the market legally in other Member States.

2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/22

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v Alice van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV

(Case C-292/08) (1)

(Insolvency - Application of the law of the Member State of the opening of proceedings - Reservation of title - Situation of assets)

2009/C 267/37

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH

Defendant: Alice van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 4(2)(b), 7(1) and 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Material scope of the regulations — Rights of the ‘State of the opening of proceedings’ — Reservation of title — Location of the goods — Exclusion from the scope of the Brussels I Regulation

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 25(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘provided that that Convention is applicable’ imply that, before it can be concluded that the recognition and enforcement provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters are applicable to judgments other than those referred to in Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, it is necessary to determine whether such judgments fall outside the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001.

2. The exception provided for in Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, must be interpreted, account being taken of the provisions of Article 4(2)(b) of the latter regulation, as meaning that it does not apply to an action brought by a seller based on a reservation of title against a purchaser who is insolvent, where the asset covered by the reservation of title is situated in the Member State of the opening of those proceedings at the time of opening of those proceedings against that purchaser.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg)) — Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool, Société Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA, European Communities, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA

(Case C-301/08) (1)

(Transport policy - Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 - Warsaw Convention - Air carrier liability in the event of accidents - Time-limit for bringing an action for damages in respect of harm suffered)

2009/C 297/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras

Defendants: Deutscher Luftpool, Société Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA, European Communities, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and (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), in relation to Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended at The Hague on 28 September 1955 — Time-limit for bringing an action for compensation for damage suffered — Effect of an advance payment by the carrier, even if without the temporal framework provided for by the regulation, on the recognition of that carrier’s liability

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended by the four additional protocols signed at Montreal on 25 September 1975, does not form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC.

2. Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents must be interpreted as not precluding the application of Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended by the four additional protocols signed at Montreal on 25 September 1975, to a situation in which a passenger seeks to establish the liability of the air carrier on account of harm suffered by him when flying between Member States of the European Community.

(1) OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-252/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Combustion plants - Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air)

2009/C 282/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annexes IV A, VI A and VII A, and of Article 12 in conjunction with Annexe VIII A.2 of Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1) — Non-compliance with the emission limit values laid down in respect of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust — Delimara and Marsa installations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to apply Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants in relation to the operation of the Phase One steam plant of the Delimara and Marsa power stations, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 12 of that directive in conjunction with Part A of Annex IV, Part A of Annex VI, Part A of Annex VII and Part A.2 of Annex VIII thereto;

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

(1) OJ C 197, 2.08.2008.
2.

Article 2, in conjunction with Article 3, of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that introduced by Article L 337-1(1) of the Luxembourg Labour Code, which is specific to the protection provided for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 in the event of the dismissal of a pregnant worker, or of a worker who has recently given birth or is breastfeeding, and which denies a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy the option to bring an action for damages whereas such an action is available to any other employee who has been dismissed, where such a limitation on remedies constitutes less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy. That would be the case in particular if the procedural rules relating to the only action available in the case of dismissal of such workers do not comply with the principle of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V., Metro Cash & Carry B.V., Remo Zaandam B.V. v Diesel S.P.A.

(Case C-324/08) (1)

(Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade-mark law - Exhaustion of trade mark proprietor’s rights - Placing of goods on the market in the European Economic Area by a third party - Implied consent - Conditions)

2009/C 297/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V., Metro Cash & Carry B.V., Remo Zaandam B.V.

Defendant: Diesel S.P.A.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Exhaustion of the right conferred by the mark — Product placed on the market in the Community or the EEA by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent — Implied consent — Conditions

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that the consent of the proprietor of a trade mark to the marketing of goods bearing that mark carried out directly in the European Economic Area by a third party who has no economic link to that proprietor may be implied, in so far as such consent is to be inferred from facts and circumstances prior to, simultaneous with or subsequent to the placing of the goods on the market in that area which, in the view of the national court, unequivocally demonstrate that the proprietor has renounced his exclusive rights.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesfinanzdirektion West v Heko Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

(Case C-260/08) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 24 - Non-preferential origin of goods - Definition of ‘substantial processing or working’ - Criterion for a change of tariff heading - Steel cables manufactured in North Korea using stranded steel wire originating in China)

2010/C 24/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesfinanzdirektion West

Defendant: Heko Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) –Determining the origin of steel cables manufactured in North Korea under a process using steel wires originating in China — Criteria to be taken into consideration for the purpose of treating a given manufacturing stage as establishing the non-preferential origin of a product — Potential significance of the fact that the tariff heading remains unchanged subsequent to the processing at issue.

Operative part of the judgment

With regard to goods classified under heading 7312 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting 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 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may cover not only such processing or working as leads to the goods which have undergone the process being classified under a different heading of the Combined Nomenclature, but also such processing or working as results, without such a change of heading, in the creation of a product with properties and a composition of its own which it did not have before the process.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-154/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2 and Article 4(1), (2) and (5) - Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment - Taxable persons - Activities or operations carried out by ‘registradores de la propiedad’ (land registrars) acting as settlement agents in charge of settlement offices of a mortgage district - Economic activities - Activity carried out independently - Public-law bodies carrying out activities in connection with their public duties - Infringement of Community law attributable to a national court)

2010/C 11/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Afonso and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 4(1) and (2) 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) — Taxable persons — Activities or operations carried out by ‘registradores de la propiedad’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by considering that the services supplied to an Autonomous Community by ‘registradores de la propiedad’ acting as settlement agents in charge of a settlement office of a mortgage district (‘oficina liquidadora de distrito hipotecario’) are not subject to value added tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Article 4(1) and (2) 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;

2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.
2.

‘Entry in the accounts’ within the meaning of Article 217(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be distinguished from entry of established entitlements in the accounts for own resources as referred to in Article 6 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. Since Article 217 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not lay down any practical procedures for ‘entry in the accounts’ within the meaning of that provision or, accordingly, any minimum requirements of a technical or formal nature, that entry in the accounts must be made in a way which ensures that the competent customs authorities enter the exact amount of the import duty or export duty resulting from a customs debt in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium, so that, inter alia, the entry in the accounts of the amounts concerned may be established with certainty, including with regard to the person liable;