ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Edwin Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Elio Fiorucci

(Case C-263/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52(2)(a) - Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a right to a name under national law - Review by the Court of Justice of the interpretation and application of national law by the General Court - Power of the General Court to alter the decision of the Board of Appeal - Limits)

2011/C 252/04

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Edwin Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Rigatti, M. Bertani, S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carrillo, Agents), Elio Fiorucci (represented by: A. Vanzetti and A. Colmano, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 in Case T-165/06 Elio Fiorucci v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by which the Court annulled, in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the Codice della Proprietà Industriale, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 (Case R 238/2005-1), relating to invalidity and revocation proceedings between Mr Elio Fiorucci and Edwin Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the claim for amendment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 May 2009 in Case T-165/06 Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI), submitted by Mr Fiorucci;

3. Orders Edwin Co. Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) each to bear its own costs and to pay jointly three quarters of the costs of Mr Fiorucci;

4. Orders Mr Fiorucci to bear one quarter of his own costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
1.

Orders that by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 and, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-447/09) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Airline pilots - Collective agreement - Clause automatically terminating employment contracts at age 60)

2011/C 319/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Whether those rules are compatible with a collective agreement which provides, on grounds of air safety, that a pilot’s contract of employment terminates automatically at the end of the month in which that pilot reaches the age of 60

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may authorise, through rules to that effect, the social partners to adopt measures within the meaning of Article 2(5) in the areas referred to in that provision that fall within collective agreements on condition that those rules of authorisation are sufficiently precise so as to ensure that those measures fulfil the requirements set out in Article 2(5). A measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which fixes the age limit from which pilots may no longer carry out their professional activities at 60 whereas national and international legislation fixes that age at 65, is not a measure that is necessary for public security and protection of health, within the meaning of the said Article 2(5).

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a clause in a collective agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that fixes at 60 the age limit from which pilots are considered as no longer possessing the physical capabilities to carry out their professional activity while national and international legislation fix that age at 65.

The first paragraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted to the effect that air traffic safety does not constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — European Commission v Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Kingdom of Spain (C-106/09), Kingdom of Spain v European Commission, Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Material selectivity - Tax regime - Gibraltar - Offshore companies)

(2012/C 25/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

C-106/09 P

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, V. Di Bucci and N. Khan, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Government of Gibraltar (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, M. Llamas, Barrister, and A. Petersen, advokat), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao, Agent, D. Anderson QC and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agents)

Intervener in support of the Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

C-107/09 P

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, V. Di Bucci and N. Khan, Agents), Government of Gibraltar (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, M. Llamas, Barrister, and A. Petersen, advokat), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao, Agent, D. Anderson QC and M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar v Commission by which the Court annulled Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement as regards the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (State aid C 66/2002 (ex N 534/2002) — United Kingdom)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission;

2. Dismisses the action brought by the Government of Gibraltar and the action brought by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

3. Orders the Government of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain on appeal and by the European Commission at first instance;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Ireland as interveners before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and before the Court of Justice of the European Union, respectively, to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA v European Commission

(Case C-318/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Article 10 EC - Duty of loyal cooperation - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Principle of legal certainty - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 49/05

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, A. Giardina, C. Croff and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-189/03 ASM Brescia SpA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

2. Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/11

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Germany) — Lecson Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund

(Case C-12/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Section XVII - Transport equipment - Chapter 87 - ‘Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof’ - Headings 8703 and 8713 - Three or four-wheeled electric vehicles designed for the transport of one person, reaching a maximum speed of 6 to 15 km/h and having a separate, adjustable steering column, known as ‘electric mobility scooters’)

2011/C 63/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lecson Elektromobile GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Dortmund

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex 1 to 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Three or four-wheeled electric vehicles designed for the transport of one person and reaching a maximum speed of 6 to 15 km/h — Classification under heading 8713 or heading 8703 of the Combined Nomenclature?

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 8703 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 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 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 must be interpreted as covering three or four-wheeled vehicles designed for the transport of one person who is not necessarily a disabled person, powered by a battery-operated electric motor, reaching a maximum speed of 6 to 15 km/h and equipped with a separate, adjustable steering column, known as electric ‘mobility scooters’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.
1.

Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codifed version), by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of that directive or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of that directive operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge

(Case C-25/10) (1)

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Inheritance tax - Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies - Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked - Restriction - Justification)

2011/C 103/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 18, 45, 49 and 54 TFEU — Succession duties — Refusal to apply the reduced rate applicable to legacies to non-profit-making associations and ‘public-interest foundations’ in cases where those associations and foundations have their seat in a Member State other than that in which the deceased person resided or worked — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Restriction of the freedom of establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State which reserves application of succession duties at the reduced rate to non-profit-making bodies which have their centre of operations in that Member State or in the Member State in which, at the time of death, the deceased actually resided or had his place of work, or in which he had previously actually resided or had his place of work.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA

(Case C-308/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal)

2011/C 204/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (represented by: J.Zindel, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the holder of the national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO for goods and services in Classes 35 and 36 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the appellant’s opposition to registration of the Community figurative mark unibanco for goods in Classes 36 and 38 — Misinterpretation of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Discretion of the Board of Appeal in respect of evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — European Communities v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-137/10) (1)

(Articles 207(2) EC and 282 EC - Representation of the European Communities before the national courts - Powers conferred on the Commission - Delegation of the power of representation to other Community institutions - Conditions)

2011/C 186/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Communities

Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 282 EC and the first subparagraph of 207(2) EC — Conditions for the Commission to delegate to another institution the powers to represent the Community in legal proceedings — Validity of the mandate in the absence of an appointment by name of the natural person having authority to represent the institution thus empowered — Jurisdiction of the national court to give judgment on the matter — Doubts relating to the validity of the representation of the Council in legal proceedings by its Deputy Secretary-General, who is responsible for the running of the General Secretariat — Respect of the principle of the organisational autonomy of the institutions

Operative part of the judgment

The mandate by which the European Commission delegated to another Community institution, in a dispute concerning the latter, the power accruing to the Commission under Article 282 EC to represent the European Communities before a national court was validly granted, regardless of whether that mandate specified by name a natural person as having authority to represent the institution thus empowered. In such cases, both the institution thus empowered and the natural person — if one were specified — were entitled to authorise a lawyer to represent the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/15

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-196/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 2203 and 2208 - Malt beer base intended for use in the production of a mixed drink)

2011/C 269/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1) and (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1) — Malt beer base with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % obtained from brewed beer which has been specially clarified and subjected to ultrafiltration and which is to be used in the making of a mixed beer drink — Classification under heading 2203 or heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature?

Operative part of the judgment

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 (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that a liquid described as a ‘malt beer base’, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % and obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration, by which the concentration of ingredients such as bitter substances and proteins has been reduced, must be classified under heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to that regulation, as amended.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/8

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-458/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/83/EC - Water intended for human consumption - Incomplete and incorrect transposition)

2011/C 226/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete and incorrect transposition of Article 9(3)(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330, p. 32) — Distribution of drinking water not complying with the required parametric values — Derogations scheme

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose completely and correctly Article 9(3)(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, 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 346, 18.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) — Office of Communications v Information Commissioner

(Case C-71/10) (1)

(Public access to environmental information - Directive 2003/4/EC - Article 4 - Exceptions to the right of access - Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of that directive)

2011/C 298/09

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties

Respondent: Office of Communications

Appellant: Information Commissioner

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) and (e) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Exceptions to the right of access — Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of the directive, the adverse effect on each interest being insufficient in itself to justify refusal of access

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a public authority holds environmental information or such information is held on its behalf, it may, when weighing the public interests served by disclosure against the interests served by refusal to disclose, in order to assess a request for that information to be made available to a natural or legal person, take into account cumulatively a number of the grounds for refusal set out in that provision.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.