ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (notified on 17 March 2005 under document No C(2005) 591) (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty.
1.

In view of Articles 3(c) and 59 of the Treaty of Rome, can the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the activity of temporary employment undertakings, the national law of a Member State may freely establish the requirements to be imposed on employers (undertakings) for the taking up and pursuit of such an activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and, in that regard, restrict the recognition of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in its territory?
—

erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (2) and of the Treaty of Accession, by finding that the period for bringing an action for annulment of Regulation No 60/2004 began to run on the day upon which the regulation was published in the official languages of the Community of 15, and therefore before publication was completed in the official languages of the enlarged Community,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/31

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 22 July 2009 — DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-279/09)

2009/C 267/54

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

The following question is referred, pursuant to Article 234 EC, to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling:

In view of the fact that Member States may not, through the structuring of conditions under national law governing the award of damages and of the procedure for pursuing a claim seeking to establish State liability under Community law, make the award of compensation in accordance with the principles of State liability under Community law virtually impossible or excessively difficult, must there be reservations with regard to a national rule under which the pursuit of a claim before the courts is subject to the making of an advance payment in respect of costs, and a legal person, which is unable to make that advance payment, does not qualify for legal aid?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: in a situation in which, under national competition law — if it should be established that the practice of an undertaking does not infringe the prohibition in Article 82 EC — a national competition authority may bring cartel proceedings to an end only by taking a decision which states that the practice does not restrict competition, is the third sentence of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty to be interpreted as constituting a direct legal basis for that authority to ‘decide that there are no grounds for action on [its] part’?
1.

Is the phrase ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted in such a way that this regulation applies also to the recognition and enforcement of an order for payment of ‘Ordnungsgeld’ (an administrative fine) pursuant to Paragraph 890 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung)?
1.

Does Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such as that laid down by Article 990 D et seq. of the Code général des impôts which grants legal persons having their effective centre of management in France or, since 1 January 2008, in a Member State of the European Union, entitlement to exemption from the tax at issue and which, as regards legal persons having their effective centre of management in the territory of a non-Member State, makes that entitlement conditional either on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion and avoidance concluded between France and that State or on there being a requirement, under a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality, that those legal persons are not to be taxed more heavily than legal persons having their effective centre of management in France?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 28 October 2009 — Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc

(Case C-427/09)

2010/C 11/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd

Defendant: Synaptech Inc

Questions referred

1. For the purposes of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 (1), is the ‘first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community’ the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community which was issued in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC (2) (now replaced with Directive 2001/83/EC (3)) or will any authorisation that enables the product to be placed on the market in the Community or EEA suffice?

2. If, for the purposes of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, an ‘authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community’ must have been issued in accordance with Directive 65/65/EEC (now replaced with Directive 2001/83/EC), is an authorisation that was granted in 1963 in Austria in accordance with the national legislation in force at that time (which did not comply with the requirements of Directive 65/65/EEC) and that was never amended to comply with Directive 65/65/EEC and was ultimately withdrawn in 2001 to be treated as an authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 65/65/EEC for that purpose?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

OJ L 182, p. 1

(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products

OJ 22, p. 369

(3) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use

OJ L 311, p. 67
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep lodged on 27 August 2009 — J A van Delft and others v College voor zorgverzekering

(Case C-345/09)

2010/C 11/21

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: J A van Delft and others

Defendant: College voor zorgverzekering

Questions referred

1. Should Articles 28, 28a and 33 of Regulation No 1408/71 (1), the provisions of sections 1(a) and (b) of Part R of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71, and Article 29 of Regulation No 574/72 (2) be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Article 69 of the Zvw [Zorgverzekeringswet] is incompatible therewith in so far as a pensioner who in principle has entitlements under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71 is obliged to report to the Cvz [College voor Zorgverzekering], and a contribution must be deducted from that person’s pension even if no registration has taken place under Article 29 of Regulation No 574/09?

2. Should Article 39 EC or Article 18 EC be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Article 69 of the Zvw is incompatible therewith in so far as a citizen of the EU who in principle has entitlements under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71 is obliged to report to the Cvz, and a contribution must be deducted from that citizen’s pension even if no registration has taken place under Article 29 of Regulation 574/09?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 323, 13.12.1996, p. 38)

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 323, 13.12.1996, p. 38)
1.

Does Directive 93/83 (1) preclude the requirement that a supplier of digital satellite television must obtain the consent of the copyright holders in the case where a broadcasting organisation transmits its programme-carrying signals, either by a fixed link or by an encrypted satellite signal, to a supplier of digital satellite television which is independent of the broadcasting organisation, and that supplier has those signals encrypted and beamed to a satellite by a company associated with it, after which those signals are beamed down, with the consent of the broadcasting organisation, as part of a package of television programmes and therefore bundled, to the satellite television supplier’s subscribers, who are able to view the programmes simultaneously and unaltered by means of a decryption card or smart card provided by the satellite television supplier?
(b)

it was acquired in the context of professional activities in the host Member State which, although not identical to the regulated profession the right to pursue which in the host Member State is the subject of the application filed by the person concerned in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (and which cannot, moreover, be lawfully pursued in the host Member State until such time as the said application has been accepted) are, in the essential view of the national authority responsible for ruling on the application, professional activities which appear to correlate with the above regulated profession, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/29

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) lodged on 12 November 2009 — Ville de Lyon v Caisse des dépôts et consignations

(Case C-524/09)

2010/C 37/36

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Lyon

Defendant: Caisse des dépôts et consignations

Questions referred

1. Is the supply or refusal to supply the information provided for in point 12 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 (1) the responsibility of the Central Administrator alone or the responsibility also of the administrator of the national registry?

2. If it is the responsibility of the administrator of the national registry, must that information be considered to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC, (2) against whose supply ‘the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ could not be invoked, or is the supply of that information governed by specific rules on confidentiality?

3. In the event that specific rules on confidentiality apply, is that information not to be supplied before a period of five years has elapsed or does that time-limit concern only the five-year allowance allocation period under Directive 2003/87/EC? (3)

4. In the event that that five-year time-limit does apply, does Article 10 of Regulation No 2216/2004 allow a derogation from it and can a refusal to derogate from it be invoked, on the basis of that article, against a local authority requesting the supply of that information in order to negotiate an agreement on public service delegation in respect of urban heating?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 386, p. 1).

(2) 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).

(3) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/4

Appeal brought on 23 November 2009 by The Wellcome Foundation Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-493/07: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-461/09 P)

2010/C 37/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd (represented by: R. Gilbey, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Serono Genetics Institute S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Find that, on confirming the contested decision of the Board of appeal, the Court of First Instance violated the legal requirements of Article 8-1-b CTMR (1) and 52-1-a CTMR

— Annul the contested judgment confriming the Board of Appeal decision in that it rejected to annul all of OHIM's and the CFI's decisions on costs, and to order OHIM to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that, based on the facts of the case as appear on the trade mark registers and as produced before OHIM, the CFI considered, without legal basis, the relevant public as having a high level of attentiveness.

The appellant submits that the CFI refused to take into account evidence produced by the appellant, which evidence, being mere amplification of arguments and evidence already produced before OHIM, should have been admissible.

The appellant submits that in describing the degree of similarity between the goods, the CFI used terminology that is vague and inconsistent, thus failing to provide precise, accurate and consistent reasons for the judgment n this issue.

The appellant submits that, on the basis of the facts before it, the CFI applied incorrect, incomplete and flawed legal tests to reach the conclusion that the Board of Appeal was correct in its finding that the level of similarity between the goods was low.

The appellant submits that the CFI, on the basis of the facts before it, failed to apply the correct test for global comparison of the signs, in reaching the conclusion that the level of similarity between the signs is low.

Finally the appellant submits that, having applied legally incorrect, incomplete or flawed tests for defining the relevant public, evaluating the degree of similarity of goods, and evaluating the degree of similarity between the signs, the CFI based its finding on likelihood of confusion, on incorrect, incomplete or flawed legal criteria.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 11, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/31

Action brought on 22 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-545/09)

2010/C 63/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools (1) is to be interpreted and applied so as to ensure that teachers seconded by a Member State have access during their secondment to the same progression in status and pay as those enjoyed by teachers employed in that Member State, and that the exclusion of certain teachers seconded by the United Kingdom, during their secondment, from access to improved pay scales (variously known as ‘threshold pay’, ‘excellent teacher system’, ‘advanced skills teachers’) and from other additional payments (such as ‘teaching and learning responsibility payments’) as well as the progression on existing pay-scales available to teachers employed in maintained schools in England and Wales is incompatible with Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) of the Convention;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This is a request under Article 26 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools (‘the Convention’) for a ruling regarding the interpretation and application of Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) of the Convention.

According to the convention, the teachers at the European Schools are seconded by their Member State of origin. Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention provides that seconded teachers ‘retain promotion and retirement rights guaranteed by their national rules’. That notwithstanding, the salaries of teachers seconded by the United Kingdom are ‘frozen’ during the period of secondment. Thus, teachers seconded to the European Schools are denied access to improved pay scales (variously known as ‘threshold pay’, ‘excellent teacher system’, ‘advanced skills teachers’) and from other additional payments (such as ‘teaching and learning responsibility payments’) as well as the progression on existing pay-scales available to teachers employed in maintained schools in England and Wales.

This policy is contrary to the letter and purpose of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention. It reduces the pension rights of the teachers concerned and their career prospects when returning to the United Kingdom. Moreover, it adversely affects the Union budget which bears the difference between a lower national pay and the Community top-up for seconded teachers.

Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention and by consequence Article 25(1) of the Convention should therefore be interpreted and applied so as to guarantee to seconded teachers full access to improved pay scales, progression on current pay scales and other allowances.

(1) OJ L 212, 17.8.1994, p. 3
—

Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15), by not adopting the measures necessary to comply with that decision in respect of Industrias Domésticas, S.A. (Indosa)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2009 — CLECE, S.A. v María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

(Case C-463/09)

2010/C 63/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CLECE, S.A.

Defendant: María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

Question referred

Does a situation in which a Town Hall resumes or takes over the activity of cleaning its premises, which was previously carried out by a contractor, and for which new staff are hired, fall within the scope of [Council Directive 2001/23/EC] (1), as defined in Article 1(1)(a) and (b) thereof?

(1) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).
2.

In the event that ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ within the meaning of Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes also covers dishes or meals for immediate consumption: Is the process of the preparation of the dishes or meals to be taken into account as a service element if it has to be decided whether the single supply of a party-service business (provision of dishes or meals ready for consumption together with the transport thereof and, perhaps, the provision of cutlery and crockery and/or tables for standing at as well as the collection of the objects provided for use) is to be classified as a supply of foodstuffs that is subject to a reduced rate of taxation (Category 1 of Annex H to that directive) or as a supply of services not subject to a reduced rate of taxation (Article 6(1) of that directive)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mora Kommun (Sweden) lodged on 21 August 2009 — Dan Bengtsson v Tele2 Sverige AB, Telenor Sverige AB, TeliaSonera Mobile Networks AB, Teracom

(Case C-344/09)

()

2010/C 317/24

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Mora Kommun

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dan Bengtsson

Defendants: Tele2 Sverige AB, Telenor Sverige AB, TeliaSonera Mobile Networks AB, Teracom

Question referred

The environment and health committee of the Municipality of Mora seeks a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) in relation to Article 174(2) EC. The question is whether the reference levels for electromagnetic fields set out in the Recommendation are to be interpreted as guidelines for the application of the precautionary principle, or whether that principle constitutes a complement to the Recommendation?

(1) Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ 1999 L 199, p. 59).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria

(Case C-449/09)

2010/C 100/21

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant: IPN Bulgaria OOD

Question referred

Is Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1), in so far is it confers on the trade mark proprietor the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with the trade mark, for example importing or exporting goods under the sign, to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor’s rights include the right to prohibit use of the trade mark without his consent through the importation of original goods, provided that the trade mark proprietor’s rights under Article 7 of the directive are not exhausted?

(1) 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).