ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV

(Case C-519/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities - Decision No 2003/515/EC - Incompatibility with the common market - Transitional provision - Admissibility - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest in bringing proceedings - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment)

2009/C 267/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and W. Geursen, advocaten)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV) v Commission annulling Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had already lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd

(Case C-441/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - World market in rough diamonds - Individual commitments by a company to cease purchasing rough diamonds from another company - Decision making a company’s individual commitments binding and terminating the proceedings)

2010/C 234/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Alrosa Company Ltd (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, K. Jones, solicitor-advocate, and S. Mobley, solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission, annulling Decision 2006/520/EC of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 82 EC and 54 EEA (Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers), making binding the commitments given by De Beers to bring to an end its purchases of rough diamonds from Alrosa with effect from 2009, after a period of progressive reduction of the amounts purchased by it from 2006 to 2008, and bringing the proceedings to an end in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission;

2. Dismisses the action brought by Alrosa Company Ltd before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Orders Alrosa Company Ltd to pay the costs both of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — Republic of Poland) — Insolvency proceedings opened against MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.

(Case C-444/07) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Refusal of recognition by a Member State of a judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by the competent court of another Member State and of the judgments concerning the course and closure of those insolvency proceedings)

2010/C 63/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Główny Urząd Celny w Saarbrücken

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — interpretation of Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Attachment by the authorities of a Member State of funds held in a bank account of an undertaking after insolvency proceedings in respect of that undertaking have been opened in another Member State, notwithstanding the provisions of the national law of the State in which those proceedings have been opened — Refusal of recognition by a Member State, in which secondary insolvency proceedings have not been opened, of the insolvency proceedings opened by a court of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, in particular Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main action, after the main insolvency proceedings have been opened in a Member State the competent authorities of another Member State, in which no secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened, are required, subject to the grounds for refusal derived from Articles 25(3) and 26 of that regulation, to recognise and enforce all judgments relating to the main insolvency proceedings and, therefore, are not entitled to order, pursuant to the legislation of that other Member State, enforcement measures relating to the assets of the debtor declared insolvent that are situated in its territory when the legislation of the State of the opening of proceedings does not so permit and the conditions to which application of Articles 5 and 10 of the regulation is subject are not met.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-282/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/38/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 82/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
1.

In order to establish whether the offence under consideration is an ‘offence other’ than that for which the person was surrendered within the meaning of Article 27(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, requiring the implementation of the consent procedure referred to in Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of that Framework Decision, it must be ascertained whether the constituent elements of the offence, according to the legal description given by the issuing State, are those in respect of which the person was surrendered and whether there is a sufficient correspondence between the information given in the arrest warrant and that contained in the later procedural document. Modifications concerning the time or place of the offence are allowed, in so far as they derive from evidence gathered in the course of the proceedings conducted in the issuing State concerning the conduct described in the arrest warrant, do not alter the nature of the offence and do not lead to grounds for non-execution under Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany)) — Glückauf Brauerei GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-83/08) (1)

(Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties - Directive 92/83/EEC - Article 4(2) - Small independent brewery which is legally and economically independent of any other brewery - Criteria of legal and economic independence - Possibility of being subject to indirect influence)

2009/C 141/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glückauf Brauerei GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Classification as ‘independent small brewery’ for the purposes of application of reduced rates of duty — Criterion of ‘economic independence’ — Brewery liable, because of shareholdings and the allocation of voting rights, to be indirectly influenced by two other breweries

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a situation characterised by the existence of structural links in terms of shareholdings and voting rights, and which results in a situation in which one individual, performing his duties as manager of a number of the breweries concerned, is able, independently of his actual conduct, to exercise influence over the taking of business decisions by those breweries, prevents them from being considered economically independent of each other.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/12

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

(Case C-245/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Free movement of persons - Freedom to provide services - Right of establishment - Adjustments consequent on the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania)

2009/C 113/22

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X (C-155/08), E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot (C-157/08) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-155/08 and C-157/08) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Wealth tax - Income tax - Savings deposited in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - No declaration - Recovery period - Extension of the recovery period in the case of assets held outside the Member State of residence - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance of the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation - Banking secrecy)

2009/C 180/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X (C-155/08), E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot (C-157/08)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC — Taxation by a Member State of income (from capital) of a national resident held in an account in an establishment situated in another Member State — Income not declared in the Member State of residence — Rules of national law providing for a 12-year recovery period in respect of income from another Member State and a 5-year recovery period in respect of income from national sources — Proportional fine — Possible relevance of the fact that banking secrecy applies in the Member State in which the income originated.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 49 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding the application by a Member State, where savings balances and income from those balances are concealed from the tax authorities of that Member State and the latter have no evidence of their existence which would enable an investigation to be initiated, of a longer recovery period when the balances are held in another Member State than when they are held in the first Member State. The fact that that other Member State applies banking secrecy is not relevant in that regard.

2. Articles 49 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding, when a Member State applies a longer recovery period in the case of assets held in another Member State than in the case of assets held in the first Member State and such foreign assets and the income therefrom were concealed from the first Member State’s tax authorities which had no evidence of their existence enabling an investigation to be initiated, the fine imposed for concealment of the foreign assets and income from being calculated as a proportion of the amount to be recovered and over that longer period.

(1) OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.

OJ C 171, 5.7.2008
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-443/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/13/EC - Limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds - Failure to transpose the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’)

2009/C 153/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the all the laws and regulations necessary to correctly transpose Article 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1) — Concept of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’

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 in order to correctly transpose Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, of 10.1.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Spain) — Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

(Case C-14/08) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Preliminary references - Jurisdiction of the Court - Definition of ‘dispute’ - Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 - Service of extrajudicial documents in the absence of legal proceedings - Notarial act)

2009/C 205/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier

Parties to the main proceedings

Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Interpretation of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37) — Service of extrajudicial documents exclusively by and to private persons using the physical and personal resources of courts of the European Union outside of any court proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The service of a notarial act, in the absence of legal proceedings, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2002 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd v SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG

(Case C-102/08) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) - Option of Member States to consider activities of bodies governed by public law exempted under Article 13 and Article 28 of the Sixth Directive as activities of public authorities - Rules governing exercise of that option - Right to deduct - Significant distortions of competition)

2009/C 180/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd

Defendant: SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) and Article 13 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) — Classification of long-term letting of offices and parking spaces by a body governed by public law as an economic activity or as property management — Detailed rules for exercising the power of Member States to treat activities of bodies governed by public law which are exempt from tax under Article 13 or Article 28 of Directive 77/388/EEC as activities in which they engage as public authorities

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Member States must lay down an express provision in order to be able to rely on the option provided for in the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) 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, according to which specific activities of bodies governed by public law that are exempt under Article 13 or Article 28 of that directive are considered as activities of public authorities

2. The second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that bodies governed by public law are to be considered taxable persons in respect of activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities not only where their treatment as non-taxable persons under the first or fourth subparagraphs of that provision would lead to significant distortions of competition to the detriment of their private competitors, but also where it would lead to such distortions to their own detriment.

(1) OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.