ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing a national law of a Member State which has introduced copyright protection for designs into its legal order in accordance with that Directive, the discretion accorded to such a Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection in the case of designs which — albeit meeting the requirements for protection laid down in copyright law — fell to be regarded as having entered into the public domain before the date on which the statutory provisions introducing copyright protection for designs into the domestic legal order entered into force and where a third party — without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs — has already produced and marketed products based on such designs in that State, where protection is precluded for a substantial period (a period of 10 years)?
2.

Is it consistent with the Member State's obligation to give effect to the exemption contained in article 27.1(f) of Directive 92/83, when read with article 27(6), and/or with article 28 EC and/or with the direct effect of those obligations and/or with the principles of equal treatment and proportionality to restrict the exemption for cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac to cases where alcoholic beverages have been used as an ingredient and to restrict the applicants for exemption to those persons who have used the alcoholic beverages as an ingredient in products and/or those persons who carry on business as wholesalers of such products and/or they produced or manufactured such products for the purposes of that business and subject to the further conditions that claims be made within an overall period of four months from the payment of duty and that the amount of the repayment be not less than £250?
—

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.

If the reply to the first question is basically in the negative, does the quality of the waste for incineration, or the particle content of the gas conducted for incineration, or the content of other impurities in it have any bearing on the matter when making an assessment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/28

Action brought on 8 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-164/09)

2009/C 180/48

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC, (1) since the Veneto Region has adopted and applies rules concerning authorisation to derogate from the system of protection for wild birds which fail to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the legislation adopted by the Veneto Region does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409.

Law No 13 of 2005, in force at the time of expiry of the reasoned opinion, does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409 in so far as:

— it identifies generally and in the abstract, without imposing any temporal limits, the species and the numbers covered by the derogation;

— the derogations for individual species of birds are provided for collectively on the basis of a general reference to all the circumstances listed in points (a) and (c) of Article 9, without appropriate explanations being given concerning the specific reasons;

— it does not lay down the requirement that it must be ascertained that there is no other satisfactory solution, or that the individual derogation measures must specify the conditions of risk, the circumstances of place and those who are authorised to apply the derogations;

— it allows the small numbers to be determined without an adequate scientific basis.

The Commission submits that the measures adopted after the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion not only fail to cure the defects already identified, but actually reproduce them in substance. The measures concerned are, inter alia, Decree No 140 of the President of the Regional Council of 20 June 2006, Decree No 230 of the President of the Regional Council of 18 October 2006, Regional Law No 24 of 16 August 2007, Decree No 167 of the President of the Regional Council of 4 September 2007, and Regional Law No 13 of 14 August 2008.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).
1.

Is Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (1) compatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, and more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed by that provision?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 25 June 2009 — Hauptzollamt Koblenz v Kurt Etling und Thomas Etling, a civil law partnership; intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

(Case C-230/09)

2009/C 220/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hauptzollamt Koblenz

Respondents: Kurt Etling und Thomas Etling, a civil law partnership

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Question referred

Must Community law, in particular Article 5(k) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, (1) be interpreted to mean that the reference quantity of a producer, in the twelve-month period in which a reference quantity was transferred to that producer from another producer, does not include the quantity in respect of which, during the twelve-month period in question, milk was already delivered by that other producer?

(1) OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123.
1.

Should Directive 2001/23/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a transfer of rights and obligations to the transferee referred to in the first sentence of Article 3(1) only if the transferor of the undertaking to be transferred is also the formal employer of the employees concerned, or does the protection of employees envisaged by the Directive imply that, upon transfer of an undertaking from an operating company belonging to a group, the rights and obligations pertaining to the employees working for that undertaking are transferred to the transferee if all the personnel working in the group are in the employ of a personnel company (which also belongs to that group) which functions as the central employer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Aduo Pisaneschi v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-287/09)

2009/C 233/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aduo Pisaneschi

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Questions referred

The Court of Justice is asked to give a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC as to whether Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC, and the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that the principle that all insurance periods must be aggregated for the purposes of entitlement to the right to benefits, and of the acquisition and maintenance of that right — a principle implemented through the adoption, by the Council, of Regulation No 1408/71 — applies in all cases where the aggregation and pro rata mechanism must be used for the purposes of recognising the right to a given benefit, with the result that account must be taken to that end both of the insurance periods completed under the legislation of each Member State, and of those completed under the social insurance scheme applicable to employees of the Community institutions.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries, or in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;
1.

that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of legal certainty, given that, while holding in the judgment under appeal that the bilateral clearance procedure was undoubtedly particularly long — since it began on 9 November 1999 with the first investigation and was completed on 15 December 2006 when the contested decision was published — it considered, however, in the Hellenic Republic’s view mistakenly, that that finding should be qualified given the context of the FEOGA account clearance procedure and held that the principle of legal certainty was not infringed;
3.

If the answer to the first of the second question is in the affirmative, is it then possible to interpret Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given the principal objective pursued by that international treaty, as meaning that it is necessary also to include within the concept ‘act of a public authority’ an act consisting in the delivery of decisions, that is to say, that the right of public access to judicial hearings intrinsically also includes the right to challenge the decision of an administrative body, the unlawfulness of which lies in its effect on the environment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/24

Appeal brought on 9 December 2008 by Hasbro, Inc. against the decision of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) contained in a letter of 22 September 2008 in Case T-472/07: Enercon v OHIM

(Case C-59/09 P)

2009/C 267/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Hasbro, Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 10 July 2009 the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals, (1) as amended by Commission Directive 2008/53/EC of 30 April 2008 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards Spring viraemia of carp (SVC), (2) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
1.

What are the characteristics of an exempt service that has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[sl changes in the legal and financial situation’? In particular: (a) Is the exemption applicable to services which would not otherwise have to be performed by any of the financial institutions which (i) make a debit to one account, (ii) make a corresponding credit to another account, or (iii) perform an intervening task between (i) or (ii)? (b) Is the exemption applicable to services which do not include the carrying out of tasks of making a debit to one account and a corresponding credit to another account, but which may, where a transfer of funds results, be seen in retrospect as having been the cause of that transfer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/42

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2009 — Frank Scheffler v Landkreis Wartburgkreis

(Case C-334/09)

2009/C 267/73

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frank Scheffler

Defendant: Landkreis Wartburgkreis

Question referred

May a Member State, in accordance with Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC, (1) exercise its authority under Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439/EEC — to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State — in relation to a certificate of aptitude to drive submitted by the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State if the certificate was issued after the date of issue of the driving licence and is also based on an examination of the party concerned carried out after the issue of the driving licence, but relates to circumstances that took place prior to the issue of the driving licence.

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/35

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2009 — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH

(Case C-316/09)

2009/C 267/66

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

Defendant: Merckle GmbH

Question referred

The following question relating to the interpretation 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, (1) most recently amended by Directive 2008/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, (2) is hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling:

Does the scope of application of Article 88(1)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use extend to the advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are available only on prescription where that advertising contains only information which was placed before the authorising authority in the course of the marketing authorisation procedure and which is accessible in any event to every person acquiring the product, and where that information is not made available to an interested party on an unsolicited basis but can be accessed only through the internet when the party concerned takes steps to do so?

(1) OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

(2) OJ 2008 L 81, p. 51.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (The Netherlands) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, other parties: Bayer CropScience BV and Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

(Case C-266/09)

2009/C 267/47

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants : Stichting Natuur en Milieu Vereniging Milieudefensie Vereniging Goede Waar & Co Defendants : College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden Other parties : Bayer CropScience BV Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

Questions referred

1. Must the term ‘environmental information’ in Article 2 of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes information submitted within the framework of a national procedure for the authorisation, or the extension of the authorisation, of a plant protection product with a view to setting the maximum quantity of a pesticide, a component thereof or reaction products which may be present in food or beverages?

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, what is the relationship between Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) and Directive 2003/4/EC in so far as it is relevant to application to information as defined in the previous question, and specifically, is that relationship such that Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC may be applied only if such application does not detract from the obligations laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

3. If it follows from the answers to the first and second questions above that the defendant is bound in the present case to apply Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC, does Article 4 of that directive mean that the weighing prescribed in that provision of the general interest served by disclosure against the specific interest served by the refusal to disclose should take place at application level or that it may be effected in national legislation?

(1) 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).

(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/27

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2009 — Pietro Infusino v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

(Case C-348/09)

2009/C 282/46

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pietro Infusino

Defendant: Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

Question referred

Does the term ‘imperative grounds of public security’ contained in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) cover only threats posed to the internal and external security of the State in terms of the continued existence of the State with its institutions and important public services, the survival of the population, foreign relations and the peaceful co-existence of nations?

(1) OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/33/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels for Gibraltar and, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose all the ‘marine based’ elements of the Directive for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive;
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it in accordance with the general principles of the right to deduct VAT that are laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC if such legislation provides that a VAT payer has the right to deduct input and/or import VAT in respect of goods and/or services acquired before the date of his registration as a VAT payer only if those goods will be used for an activity of that VAT payer that is subject to VAT, that is to say, input and/or import VAT in respect of goods and services acquired before the date of his registration as a VAT payer may not be deducted if those goods have already been used for that activity?
—

declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (1) and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (2) and Article 220 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, (3) in that the Finnish authorities have followed an administrative practice under which the Community’s own resources are established only after the debtor has been allowed a period of at least 14 days within which he may submit observations concerning the matter. The Finnish authorities thus have failed to comply, in the case of subsequent charging of customs duties, with the time-limits laid down for the entry of own resources in the accounts, as a result of which the payment of the Community’s own resources by the authorities has been delayed;
1.

Do the provisions of national law contained in Article 13(1)(16) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 1992. évi LXXIV. törvény (Law LXXIV of 1992 on turnover tax), in force at the material time when the disputed invoices were issued, or in Article 1/E(1) of Order 24/1995 (XI.22) of the Hungarian Ministry of Finance, specifically the provision in Article 13(1)(16)(f) of the Law on turnover tax, comply with the features of invoices, and the concept of an invoice, laid down in Article 2(b) of Directive 2001/115/EC (1) amending Directive 77/388/EEC (2) (‘the Sixth Directive’) with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax? In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative,