ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-404/05) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - Organic production of agricultural products - Private inspection bodies - Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided - Justifications - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Article 55 EC - Consumer protection)

(2008/C 22/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C.Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Requirement for inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products which are approved in another Member State to have a place of business or permanent infrastructure in Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Germany in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

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

(1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-398/05) (1)

(Common commercial policy - Countervailing duties - Protection against subsidies - Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 - Stainless steel wires - Injury to the Community industry - Causal link)

(2008/C 107/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 of 12 July 1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 1999 L 189, p. 1) — Appraisal of harm caused to the Community industry, causal link with imports of subsidised goods

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 of 12 July 1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of Korea.

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.
1.

Declares that, in relation to the Consolidated Law on public security (Testo unico delle leggi di pubblica sicurezza), approved by Royal Decree No 773 of 18 June 1931, as amended: — by providing that it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC; — by providing that private security activities may be pursued by service providers established in other Member States only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto, without requiring account to be taken of the obligations to which those service providers are already subject in the Member States of origin, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; — by providing that that authorisation is to have limited territorial validity and that the granting of such authorisation is to be subject to consideration of the number and size of security undertakings already operating in the area in question, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC; — by providing that private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; — by providing that the staff of those undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work, without requiring account to be taken of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; — by providing that private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or a maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC; — by providing that those undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC; and — by providing that the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-294/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment and of dual-use goods for civil and military use)

2010/C 51/03

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Ström van Lier, P. Dejmek and G. Wilms, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and A. Falk, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, 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 (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment and goods for civilian or military use

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to declare and pay to the European Commission own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002, relating to imports of war material and goods for both civil and military use, and by failing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the European Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, until 31 May 2000 and, after that date, the same articles 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 Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-389/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 and 49 EC - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Animal health - Artificial insemination centre for bovine animals - National rules conferring on authorised centres the exclusive right to provide the service of artificially inseminating bovine animals in a defined geographical area and making the issue of an inseminator's licence subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres)

(2008/C 223/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and E. Traversa, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, A. Colomb and G. Le Bras, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 49 EC — Only ‘insemination centres’ authorised in France allowed to carry out activities relating to the artificial insemination of bovine animals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing only authorised artificial insemination centres, with exclusive rights over determined geographical areas, and persons holding an inseminator's licence, the issue of which is subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres, to provide the service of artificial insemination of bovine animals, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-508/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/59/EC - Article 11 - Waste management - Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls - Failure to communicate the required plans and outlines)

(2008/C 22/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, L. Farrugia, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31) — Failure to prepare and communicate to the Commission within the period laid down the plans, outlines and summaries of inventories prescribed by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded;

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

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-186/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida))

(2008/C 51/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Plan to irrigate the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by authorising the irrigation project in the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal in the Province of Lleida, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds to take appropriate measures to avoid, in the areas affected by that project which ought to have been classified as special protection areas, the prohibited disturbances;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/20

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lyon — France) — Cedilac SA v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-368/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct - Principles of immediate deduction and fiscal neutrality - Carry forward of the excess VAT to the following period or refund - One-month delay rule - Transitional provisions - Retention of the exemption)

(2008/C 51/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cedilac SA

Defendant: Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Lyon — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 18(4) 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) — Conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT charged on the price of a taxable transaction when the amount of authorised transactions exceeds the amount of tax due for a given tax period — Excess carried forward to the next period or refunded

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 17 and 18(4) 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, are to be interpreted as not precluding national measures such as the transitional measures provided for by Law No 93-859 of 22 June 1993, the amending Finance Law for 1993, which are designed to accompany the abolition of a national derogating provision authorised by Article 28(3)(d) of the same directive, in so far as the national court verifies that, in its application to the specific case before it, those measures reduce the effects of the national derogating provision.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-274/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 56 EC - National provision limiting the voting rights of shareholders in undertakings in the energy sector - Limitation applicable to public bodies)

(2008/C 79/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Stovlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as the Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 56 EC — National provision which provides, in certain cases, for the limitation of voting rights in undertakings in the energy sector

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force measures such as those laid down in the Supplementary Provision No 27 to Law 55/1999 of 29 December 1999 on fiscal, administrative and social measures, in the version of that provision in Article 94 of Law 62/2003 of 30 December 2003, which limits the voting rights of shares held by public bodies in Spanish undertakings operating in the energy sector, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC.

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

(1) OJ C 212 of 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-246/06) (1)

(Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC - Direct effect - Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under a judicial conciliation settlement - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision)

(2008/C 64/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josefa Velasco Navarro

Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Scope of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — Compensation on termination of the employment relationship — National rules under which a judgment or administrative decision is required for such compensation — Direct effect of the directive, as amended, as regards a state of insolvency declared between the date of entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for its transposition

Operative part of the judgment

1. Where Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer has not been transposed into national law by 8 October 2005, the possible direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, cannot, in any event, be relied upon in relation to a state of insolvency which occurred before that date.

2. Where rules of national law fall within the scope of Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, the national courts are bound, as regards a state of insolvency occurring between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive into national law, to ensure that the application of those rules of national law is consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, as recognised by the Community legal order.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-227/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Construction products - Directive 89/106/EEC - Absence of harmonised standards - National marks of conformity - Presumption of conformity)

(2008/C 116/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Wimmer, A. Hubert, L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents, and F. de Montpellier and G. Block, lawyers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National law imposing a de facto obligation for economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity in order to market those products in Belgium

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by encouraging economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.

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

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) — Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

(Case C-507/06) (1)

(Entitlement to childcare allowance in Austria - Periods of drawing family benefits in another Member State not taken into account - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

(2008/C 92/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Malina Klöppel

Respondent: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 72 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 1), and Article as well as of Article 10(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 410/2002 of 27 February 2002 (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 17) — Childcare allowance — Possibility of extending the period of granting from 30 months to 36 months where care of the child is transferred and allowance granted to other parent — Account not taken of periods, completed jointly by the father and the mother, of granting of a similar allowance paid to the other parent in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended in turn by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as the Austrian childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.