ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — L v M

(Case C-463/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(4) and (5) - Determination of the type of plans likely to have significant environmental effects - Building plan ‘for development within an urban area’ exempted from an environmental assessment under national legislation - Incorrect assessment of the qualitative condition of ‘inner city development’ - No effect on the legal validity of the building plan - Effectiveness of the directive undermined)

2013/C 164/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: M

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 3(4) and (5), of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Scope — National legislation providing for an accelerated procedure not including an environmental impact assessment for the adoption of development plans relating to small areas at local level which meet certain qualitative and quantitative — Incorrect assessment of the qualitative criteria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, read in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which breach of a qualitative condition, imposed by the implementing provision of that directive to exempt the adoption of a particular type of building plan from an environmental assessment under that directive, is irrelevant to the legal validity of that plan.

(1) OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt, Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft, Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., the legal successor of the Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

(Case C-32/11) (1)

(Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Application of similar national regulations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and car repairers relating to hourly repair charges - Charges paid depending on the number of insurance contracts concluded for the insurance company by those repairers in their capacity as brokers - Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’)

2013/C 141/03

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt, Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt, Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft, Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., the legal successor of the Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft

Defendant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU — Bilateral agreements between an insurance company and certain car repairers under which the hourly repair charge paid by the insurance company to those repairers depends on the number and scale of insurance policies taken out with the insurance company by the repairer, as the insurance broker for the insurance company in question — National legislation relying on a concept analogous to a concept of Union law — Concept of ‘agreements which have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements whereby car insurance companies come to bilateral arrangements, either with car dealers acting as car repair shops or with an association representing those dealers, concerning the hourly charge to be paid by the insurance company for repairs to vehicles insured by it, stipulating that that charge depends, inter alia, on the number and percentage of insurance contracts that the dealer has sold as intermediary for that company, can be considered to be a restriction of competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of that provision, where, following a concrete and individual examination of the wording and aim of those agreements and of the economic and legal context of which they form a part, it is apparent that they are, by their very nature, injurious to the proper functioning of normal competition on one of the two markets concerned.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Sweetman and Others v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-258/11) (1)

(Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6 - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project - Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned - Lough Corrib site - N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme)

2013/C 156/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Respondent: An Bord Pleanála

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court, Ireland — Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project — Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or such a project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned — Consequences of application of the precautionary principle — Construction of a road whose route crosses an area proposed as a special area of conservation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of sites of Community importance, in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — ITV Broadcasting Limited and Others v TVCatchup Limited

(Case C-607/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Broadcasting by a third party over the internet of signals of commercial television broadcasters - ‘Live streaming’ - Communication to the public)

2013/C 123/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ITV Broadcasting Ltd, ITV 2 Ltd, ITV Digital Channels Ltd, Channel 4 Television Corporation, 4 Ventures Ltd, Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd, ITV Studios Ltd

Defendant: TVCatchup Ltd

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Authorisation, by right holders, of the television broadcasting of their works on the free terrestrial network covering either the whole territory of a Member State or a limited geographical area within that Member State — Continuous transmission service, operated by a third party broadcaster, available to individual subscribers who have paid the television licence fee, meaning that those subscribers can receive the programmes live via video streams on the internet

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers a retransmission of the works included in a terrestrial television broadcast — where the retransmission is made by an organisation other than the original broadcaster, — by means of an internet stream made available to the subscribers of that other organisation who may receive that retransmission by logging on to its server, — even though those subscribers are within the area of reception of that terrestrial television broadcast and may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver.

2. The answer to Question 1 is not influenced by the fact that a retransmission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is funded by advertising and is therefore of a profit-making nature.

3. The answer to Question 1 is not influenced by the fact that a retransmission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is made by an organisation which is acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/7

Judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Force majeure - Armed conflict)

2013/C 171/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. M. Joséphidès, Agents)

Re:

Appeals against the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2011 in Cases T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council, T-349/11 Koné v Council, T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council, T-351/11 Djédjé v Council and T-352/11 N’Guessan v Council by which it dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellants’ actions for the annulment of, first, Council Decisions 2011/17/CFSP of 11 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 31), 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and, secondly, Council Regulations (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — No individual notification of the decision — Case of force majeure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Mr Laurent Gbagbo, Mr Katinan Justin Koné, Ms Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie, Mr Alcide Djédjé and Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias

(Case C-575/11) (1)

(Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Profession of physiotherapist - Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications - Article 49 TFEU)

2013/C 225/24

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos

Defendant: Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU, of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Refusal to grant authorisation giving access to the regulated profession of physiotherapist in a host Member State to one of that State’s nationals who does not have a diploma to that effect, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/51/EEC, but does have qualifications for engaging in a similar profession that is recognised in another Member State — Possibility of partial access, limited to certain activities covered by the profession

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes partial access to the profession of physiotherapist, regulated in the host Member State, by a national of that State who obtained, in another Member State, a qualification such as that of medical masseur-hydrotherapist, authorising him to carry out, in that second Member State, part of the activities coming under the profession of physiotherapist, when the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality the applicant should follow a full programme of education and training in order to pursue the profession of physiotherapist. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

(Case C-534/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Applicability to asylum seekers - Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made)

2013/C 225/21

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mehmet Arslan

Defendant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Scope — Detention of a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State with a view to his removal where he has made an application for asylum within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status during the period from the making of the application to the adoption of the decision at first instance on that application or, as the case may be, until the outcome of any action brought against that decision is known.

2. Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and Directive 2005/85 do not preclude a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85 after having been detained under Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 from being kept in detention on the basis of a provision of national law, where it appears, after an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the relevant circumstances, that the application was made solely to delay or jeopardise the enforcement of the return decision and that it is objectively necessary to maintain detention to prevent the person concerned from permanently evading his return.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh v Magyar Állam

(Case C-409/11) (1)

(Use of motor vehicles - Insurance against civil liability - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4), first subparagraph - Insolvency of the insurer - No payment of compensation by the body providing compensation)

2013/C 252/09

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh

Defendant: Magyar Állam

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360) — Obligation for the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability cover the whole of the territory of the Community — Withdrawal of a motor vehicle insurance company’s operating licence, giving rise to an obligation on the part of individuals who had concluded contracts with that insurance company to answer personally, using their own assets, for the damage they caused to others — State liability in cases of incorrect transposition of a directive

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, read in the light of Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as not including, among the obligations which that provision imposes on Member States, that of establishing a body to ensure that compensation is provided to victims of road accidents in situations where, although the persons responsible for the damage had taken out insurance covering their civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the insurer has become insolvent.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-312/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 5 - Establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation - Persons with disabilities - Insufficient implementing measures)

2013/C 245/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Gerardis, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for the application of that article through various measures, the application of which is itself dependent on the currently purely theoretical adoption of further measures — Insufficient guarantees and adjustments

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not introducing a requirement for all employers to make reasonable adjustments, where needed in a particular case, for all persons with disabilities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the correct and full implementation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.