ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Susanne Gassmayr v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung

(Case C-194/08) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Articles 5(3) and 11(1) to (3) - Direct effect - Pregnant worker granted leave during her pregnancy - Worker on maternity leave - Right to payment of an on-call duty allowance)

2010/C 234/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Susanne Gassmayr

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 11(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Direct effect — Right of a female worker, during periods when pregnant workers are prohibited from working and/or during maternity leave, to a non-flat-rate allowance for on-call duty outside normal working hours (‘Journaldienstzulage’).

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 11(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) has direct effect and gives rise, for the benefit of individuals, to rights which they can rely on against a Member State which has failed to implement that directive in national law or has implemented it incorrectly, and which the national courts are required to protect;

2. Article 11(1) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a pregnant worker temporarily granted leave from work on account of her pregnancy is entitled to pay equivalent to the average earnings she received during a reference period prior to the beginning of her pregnancy with the exception of the on-call duty allowance;

3. Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a worker on maternity leave is entitled to pay equivalent to the average earnings she received during a reference period prior to the beginning of her maternity leave with the exception of the on-call duty allowance.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Baden-Württemberg v Metin Bozkurt

(Case C-303/08) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Family reunification - Article 7, first paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Spouse of a Turkish worker who has cohabited with her for more than five years - Continuing existence of the right of residence after divorce - Conviction of the person concerned for violence towards his ex-wife - Abuse of rights)

2011/C 55/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant: Metin Bozkurt

Intervener: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence acquired, as a family member, by a Turkish national as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Retention of the right of residence in the case of divorce preceded by physical attacks on the ex-spouse which resulted in a criminal conviction

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council created by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who, as a member of the family of a Turkish worker who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and as a result of his residing with his spouse for a continuous period of at least five years, enjoys the rights relating to the legal status conferred on the basis of the second indent of that provision, does not lose those rights on account of his divorce, which took place after those rights were acquired.

2. It is not an abuse of rights for a Turkish national such as the applicant in the main proceedings to rely on a right legally acquired pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 even though the person concerned, after acquiring that right through his former wife, committed a serious offence against her which gave rise to a criminal conviction. By contrast, Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 does not preclude a measure ordering the expulsion of a Turkish national who has been convicted of criminal offences, provided that his personal conduct constitutes a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. It is for the competent national court to assess whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 October 2010 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-482/08) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision 2008/633/JHA - Access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by the European Police Office (Europol) for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences - Development of provisions of the Schengen acquis - Exclusion of the United Kingdom from the procedure for adopting the decision - Validity)

2010/C 346/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson and I. Rao, Agents and by T. Ward, barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Schutte and R. Szostak, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent), European Commission (represented by M. Wilderspin and B.D. Simon, Agents)

Re:

Article 35(6) EU — Annulment of Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (OJ 2008 L 218, p. 129) — Exclusion of the United Kingdom from the procedure for adopting that decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-306/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 93/37/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Procedures for the award of public works contracts - Urban development legislation of the Autonomous Community of Valencia)

2011/C 211/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, D. Kukovec and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1, 6(6), 11, 12 and Title II of Chapter IV (Articles 24 to 29) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and Articles 2, 6, 24, 30, 31(4)(a), 48(2) and 53 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Urban development legislation of the Valencian Community — Non-conformity with Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC by adopting and/or by maintaining in force the following provisions: — Article 4(1) of Law 18/2005 on trading establishments (Ley 18/2005 de equipamientos comerciales) of 27 December 2005, in so far as it prohibits the opening of large retail establishments outside consolidated urban areas of a limited number of municipalities; — Articles 7 and 10(2) of the Annex to Decree 379/2006 approving the new sectoral territorial plan for trading establishments (Decreto 379/2006 por el que se aprueba el Plan territorial sectorial de equipamientos comerciales) of 10 October 2006, and Annex 1 thereto, in so far as those provisions restrict the opening of new hypermarkets to a limited number of districts and provide that such new hypermarkets are not to account for more than 9 % of estimated expenses for staple supplies and 7 % of estimated expenses for non-staple supplies; — the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Law 7/1996 on retail commerce (Ley 7/1996, de ordenación del comercio minorista) of 15 January 1996, Article 8 of Law 18/2005 on trading establishments of 27 December 2005 and Articles 31(4) and 33(2) of Decree 378/2006, implementing Law 18/2005 (Decreto 378/2006 por el que se desarolla la Ley 18/2005), of 10 October 2006, in so far as those provisions require the application of ceilings as regards market share and the impact on existing retail trade, above which it is impossible to open new large retail establishments and/or new medium-sized retail establishments; and — Article 26 of Decree 378/2006 implementing Law 18/2005 of 10 October 2006, in so far as in specifying the composition of the Comisión de Equipamientos Comerciales (Retail Facilities Committee) it ensures that existing retail trade is represented and fails to ensure that associations active in the field of environmental protection, or interest groups working towards consumer protection, are represented;
1.

declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry v Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

(Case C-62/09) (1)

(Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 94 - Financial inducements to medical practices which prescribe certain medicinal products to their patients - Public health authorities - Doctors - Freedom to prescribe)

(2010/C 161/14)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

Defendant: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Intervener in support of the defendant: NHS Confederation (Employers) Company Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 94(1) of 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 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Implementation by a public body forming part of the national health service of a financial inducement scheme in favour of medical practices which prescribe certain medicinal products to their patients

Operative part of the judgment

Article 94(1) of 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, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as not precluding financial incentive schemes, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, implemented by the national public health authorities in order to reduce their public-health expenditure and designed to encourage, for the purpose of treating certain conditions, the prescription by doctors of specific named medicinal products containing an active substance which is different from the active substance of the medicinal product which was previously prescribed or which might have been prescribed but for such an incentive scheme.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-79/09) (1)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 13 and 132 - Bodies governed by public law - Capacity as public authorities - Activities - Treatment as non-taxable persons - Exemptions - Socio-cultural, health and education sectors - ‘Euroregions’ - Promotion of work mobility - Making available of personnel - Burden of proof)

2010/C 134/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, D.J.M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(1)(c), 13, 24(1) and 132 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Making available of personnel in the health, education and socio-cultural sectors — Promotion of work mobility — Euroregion

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129 of 6.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv v Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev

(Case C-2/09) (1)

(Excise duties - Taxation of used vehicles - Taxation of imported used vehicles higher than that imposed on vehicles which are already in circulation in the national territory - Taxation according to the year of manufacture and mileage of the vehicles - Concept of ‘similar domestic products’)

2010/C 221/12

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv

Defendant: Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven Administrativen Sad — Interpretation of Article 25 and Article 90, first paragraph, of the EC Treaty and of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — National (excise) duty imposed on second-hand motor vehicles from a Member State on their introduction onto national territory, higher than the excise payable on new motor vehicles introduced onto the same national territory, which, being already in circulation, are no longer subject to excise duties on their subsequent resale as second-hand vehicles — Meaning of ‘similar domestic products’ — Compatibility of national legislation with Community rules

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products does not apply to a case such as the main proceedings and cannot therefore preclude a Member State from laying down provisions levying excise duty on the introduction of used motor vehicles into its territory, if that duty is not directly payable on the second-hand purchase of such vehicles which are already in the country and on which excise duty has already been paid on first introduction into the territory of the Member State, provided that such a system does not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States.

2. The first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that used vehicles imported into Bulgaria must be considered as similar products to used vehicles already registered in that State which were imported into that State as new vehicles, independently of their origin.

3. The first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU precludes a Member State from applying differing rules on the levying of excise duty on motor vehicles in circumstances such as those in the present case where that excise duty is levied differently on used vehicles imported from other Member States and used vehicles already registered in that State and which were imported into that State as new vehicles.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-311/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - International carriage of persons - Flat-rate taxation of transporters domiciled outside the national territory)

2010/C 179/22

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz und M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — International carriage of persons by road — National rules requiring transporters domiciled abroad to pay VAT under a flat-rate system based only on the number of persons transported to the national territory and which does not allow any right to deduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by charging value added tax in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on the taxation of goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

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

(1) OJ C 256 of 24.10.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

(Case C-214/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of the word mark BUDWEISER - Opposition - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Submission of evidence ‘in due time’ - Certificate of renewal for the earlier mark - Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

2010/C 246/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anheuser-Busch Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (represented by: K. Čermák, advokát)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark “BUDWEISER” for goods in class 32 seeking annulment of Decision R 299/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international figurative and word marks “BUDWEISER” and “Budweiser Budvar” for goods in classes 31 and 32.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Anheuser-Busch Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.