ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE (C-128/10), Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia (C-129/10) v Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilías

(Joined Cases C-128/10 and C-129/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Maritime cabotage - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services - Review of conditions relating to the safety of ships - Maintenance of order in ports - Public service obligations - Absence of precise criteria known in advance)

2011/C 139/18

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE (C-128/10), Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia (C-129/10)

Defendant: Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilías

Intervener: Koinopraxia Epibatikon Ochimatagogon Ploion Kavalas — Thasou (C-128/10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Arts 1, 2 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — National legislation requiring prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services — System aimed at verifying whether schedules can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port — No precise criteria known in advance

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which establishes a system of prior authorisation for maritime cabotage services providing for the adoption of administrative decisions imposing compliance with certain timeslots for reasons relating, first, to the safety of ships and order in ports and, second, to public service obligations, provided that such a system is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, particularly in cases where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time. With respect to the administrative decisions imposing public service obligations, it is also necessary that a genuine public service need arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services under conditions of free competition can be demonstrated. It is for the national court to determine whether in the main proceedings those conditions are met.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV

(Case C-11/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Customs duties - Relief - Pharmaceutical substances - Composition - Restrictions)

2011/C 103/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Marishipping and Transport BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Pharmaceutical substances exempted from customs duties — Substance not presented in its pure form — Restrictions

Operative part of the judgment

Part One, Section II, C, 1(i) of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 and 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a pharmaceutical substance listed in Annex 3 of Part Three of Annex I, to which other substances have been added, in particular pharmaceutical substances, no longer qualifies for the duty-free treatment which would have applied if such a substance had been in its pure form.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany)) — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch

(Case C-144/10) (1)

(Jurisdiction in civil matters - Articles 22(2) and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat to adjudicate upon disputes relating to the validity of decisions of the company’s organs - Scope - Action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that a contract is void on account of alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the contract - Lis pendens - Obligation on any court other than the court first seised to stay proceedings - Scope)

2011/C 194/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammergericht Berlin — Interpretation of Articles 22(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat over disputes concerning the validity of the decisions of its organs — Applicability of that exclusive jurisdiction rule to an action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that an agreement is void on account of the alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the agreement

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings in which a company pleads that a contract cannot be relied upon against it because a decision of its organs which led to the conclusion of the contract is supposedly invalid on account of infringement of its statutes.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-152/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) - Plastic urine drainage bags intended exclusively for use with catheters - Headings 9018 and 3926 - ‘Parts’ and ‘accessories’ - Other articles of plastics)

2011/C 232/13

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unomedical A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a dialyser — Classification under subheading 9018 90 30 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a catheter — Classification under subheading 9018 39 00 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Definition of ‘Part and/or accessory’

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning that a dialysis drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and can be used only with, a dialyser (artificial kidney), had, between May 2001 and December 2003, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’ and that a urine drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and therefore can be used only in connection with, a catheter had, during the same period, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio SA v Administración del Estado

(Case C-285/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11A(1) and 27 - Taxable amount - Extension of the rules on application for private use to transactions between connected parties where prices are patently lower than open market prices)

2011/C 226/11

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Campsa Estaciones de Servicio SA

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 6, 11 and 27 of the 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) — Extension of rules on application of goods and services for private use to transactions between connected parties where the price is patently lower than the open market value

Operative part of the judgment

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, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from applying to transactions, such as those in the main proceedings, effected between connected parties having agreed a price which is patently lower than the open market price, a rule for determining the taxable amount other than the general rule laid down in Article 11A(1)(a) of that directive, by extending the scope of the rules for determining the taxable amount on the application of goods and services for private use by a taxable person, within the meaning of Articles 5(6) and 6(2) of that directive, when the procedure provided for in Article 27 of that directive to obtain authorisation for such derogation from that general rule has not been followed by that Member State.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

(Case C-252/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public procurement - European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) - Call for tenders relating to the ‘SafeSeaNet’ application - Decision rejecting a tenderer’s bid - Contract award criteria - Sub-criteria - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 269/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: J. Menze, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaaten)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2010 in Case T-70/05 (Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA) in so far it dismissed the appellant’s application for the annulment of the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (‘EMSA’) of 6 January 2005 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in a tendering procedure relating to the validation of the SafeSeaNet application and its further development

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Etimine SA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-15/10) (1)

(Environment and protection of human health - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Borate substances - Classification as reprotoxic substances in category 2 - Directive 2008/58/EC and Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Adaptation of the classifications to technical and scientific progress - Validity - Methods of assessing the intrinsic properties of those substances - Manifest error of assessment - Legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 269/15

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Etimine SA

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Intervener: Borax Europe Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity, so far as concerns the classification of borates as substances toxic for reproduction, of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1) — Incorrect assessment of the existence, as required by Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC, of a risk upon normal handling and use of the substance

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, first, of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances and, second, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, in so far as that directive and that regulation classified certain borate substances as reprotoxic in category 2.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Hessen v Franz Mücksch OHG

(Case C-53/10) (1)

(Environment - Directive 96/82/EC - Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Prevention - Appropriate distances between areas of public use and establishments where large quantities of dangerous substances are present)

2011/C 319/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Hessen

Defendant: Franz Mücksch OHG

Intervener: Merck KGaA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (OJ 2008 L 311, p. 1) — Prevention of major accidents — Extent of the obligation on Member States to ensure that their land-use policies take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between areas of public use and establishments where large quantities of dangerous substances are present — Construction of a garden centre near such an establishment — Existence of several other businesses in the same area at risk

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of Member States to ensure that account is taken of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by that directive and buildings of public use also applies to a public authority, such as the city of Darmstadt (Germany), responsible for issuing planning permissions, even when it has no discretion in the exercise of that prerogative.

2. The obligation set out in Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82, as amended by Directive 2003/105, to take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by that directive and buildings of public use does not require the competent national authorities to prohibit the siting of a building of public use in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings. By contrast, that obligation precludes national legislation that provides that it is mandatory to issue an authorisation for the siting of such a building without the hazards connected with the siting of the building within the perimeter of those distances having been duly assessed at the planning stage or at that of the individual decision.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulation and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — DHL International NV, formerly Express Line NV v Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie

(Case C-148/10) (1)

(Postal services - External procedures for dealing with users’ complaints - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 19 - Scope - Additional to means of redress available under national law and under European Union law - Freedom of action of Member States - Restrictions - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment)

2011/C 355/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL International NV, formerly Express Line NV

Defendant: Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 17 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21) and 2008/6/EC (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3) — Procedures for dealing with complaints from users of postal services — External scheme for dealing with complaints

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, in its original version and in the versions as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on providers of postal services which are outside the scope of the universal service a mandatory external procedure for dealing with complaints from users of those services;

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on providers of postal services which are outside the scope of the universal service a mandatory external procedure for dealing with complaints from users of those services.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.