ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-125/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person)

(2008/C 116/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and M. Huttunen, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG (represented by M. Garcia, Solicitor), French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG v Commission of the European Communities, in which the Court annulled the Commission's decision, adopted under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EC of 3 October 1989, declaring compatible with the common market certain measures taken by the United Kingdom regarding restrictions on the television broadcasting of a series of sports and other events of national interest — Concept of being directly and individually concerned for the purposes of Article 230 EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Eurohypo AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-304/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Word mark EUROHYPO - Absolute ground for refusal of registration - Trade mark devoid of any distinctive character)

(2008/C 158/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Eurohypo AG (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Kloth, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and J. Weberndörfer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04 Eurohypo AG v OHIM in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision refusing to register the word mark EUROHYPO for services in Class 36 — Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of a service

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04 Eurohypo v OHIM (EUROHYPO), inasmuch as the Court of First Instance of the European Communities held that the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) did not infringe Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3288/94 of 22 December 1994, by refusing, in its decision of 6 August 2004 (Case R 829/2002-4), to register the term EUROHYPO as a Community trade mark for services in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement of 15 June 1957 concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, as revised and amended, corresponding to the following description: ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial services; financing …’;

2. Dismisses the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2004 (Case R 829/2002-4);

3. Orders Eurohypo AG to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
3.

Although the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality apply in principle to the case in the main proceedings, an infringement of those principles is not constituted merely by the fact that a refusal to make repayment was based on the unjust enrichment of the taxable person concerned. By contrast, the principle of fiscal neutrality precludes the concept of unjust enrichment from being applied only to taxable persons such as ‘payment traders’ (taxable persons for whom, in a given prescribed accounting period, the output tax collected exceeds the input tax) and not to taxable persons such as ‘repayment traders’ (taxable persons whose position is the inverse of that of payment traders), in so far as those taxable persons have marketed similar goods. It will be for the national court to determine whether that is the position in the present case. Furthermore, the general principle of equal treatment, the infringement of which may be established, in matters relating to tax, by discrimination affecting traders who are not necessarily in competition with each other but are nevertheless in a similar situation in other respects, precludes discrimination between ‘payment traders’ and ‘repayment traders’, which is not objectively justified.
1)

On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence. In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon

(Case C-521/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 13 and 20 - Concept of ‘act open to challenge’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC)

(2008/C 223/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (represented by: S. A. Pappas, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent), Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking annulment of the Commission's letter of 2 December 2004 informing the then applicant that no further action would be taken in regard to its complaint alleging that State aid had been granted by the Hellenic Republic in the context of a public contract tendering procedure — Concept of an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 230 EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission.

2. Rejects the preliminary plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for it to rule on the pleas in law of Athinaïki Techniki AE, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 June 2004 to take no further action concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in the disposal of 49 % of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.

4. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Cavallera

(Case C-311/06) (1)

(Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Homologation of an educational qualification - Engineer)

(2009/C 69/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

Defendants: Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Cavallera

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation 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) — Whether applicable in the case of an Italian national who is registered in the Spanish professional register following recognition of equivalence of his engineering degree but who has never pursued that profession in Spain and who applies, on the basis of the Spanish qualification authorising him to pursue that profession, to be entered in the professional register in Italy

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions 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 cannot be relied on, for the purpose of gaining access to a regulated profession in a host Member State, by the holder of a certificate issued by an authority of another Member State which does not attest any education or training covered by the education system of that Member State and is not based on either an examination taken or professional experience acquired in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — R.H.H. Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-527/06) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 39 EC - Tax legislation - Income tax - Determination of the basis of assessment - National of a Member State receiving all or almost all of his income in that State - Residence in a different Member State)

(2008/C 313/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R.H.H. Renneberg

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 56 EC — Determination of the taxable amount for purposes of income tax — National of a Member State receiving all of his income in that State but residing in a different Member State — National legislation which does not allow for deduction of negative income relating to a house situate in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a Community national who is not resident in the Member State in which he receives all or almost all of his taxable income cannot, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of that income in that Member State, deduct negative income relating to a house owned by him and used as a dwelling in another Member State, whereas a resident of the first Member State may deduct such negative income for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of taxation of his income.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, Belgium) — NV Lammers & Van Cleeff v Belgische Staat

(Case C-105/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Interest paid by a subsidiary on funds lent by the parent company established in another Member State - Reclassification of the interest as taxable dividends - No such reclassification where interest payments are made to a resident company)

(2008/C 64/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NV Lammers & Van Cleeff

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC — National fiscal legislation reclassifying as taxable dividends interest paid by a subsidiary by way of remuneration in respect of loans provided by the parent company established in another Member State, but not reclassifying such interest as taxable dividends when paid to a company established in Belgium

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/16

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-106/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/59/EC - Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues - Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

(2008/C 22/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to develop and implement, within the prescribed period, waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-98/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 19(2) - Calculation of the deductible proportion - Exclusion of amounts of turnover attributable to the supplies of capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business - Notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ - Vehicles purchased by a leasing company to be leased and subsequently sold on termination of the respective leasing contracts)

(2008/C 107/12)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 19 of 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) — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Inclusion or not of the amount of the turnover from the sale of vehicles of a vehicle leasing company at the end of the leasing contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2) of 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ does not include vehicles which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view, as in the case in the main proceedings, to leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of that undertaking.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-147/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC - Quality of water intended for human consumption - Maximum concentrations of nitrates and pesticides - Incorrect application)

(2008/C 79/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, J. Hottiaux and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Gasri, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32) — Failure, in certain départements, to remain within the chemical parameters laid down in Annex I, Part B to Directive 98/83 — Nitrates and pesticides

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-341/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

(2008/C 171/18)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45 and — corrigendum — OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — A.O.B. Reuter & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-143/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Article 11 - System of export refunds on agricultural products - Condition for the grant of the refund - Refund paid to the exporter after submission of documents forged by its contracting partner - Goods not exported - Conditions for the application of sanctions)

(2008/C 142/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.O.B.Reuter & Co.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57), and of Article 51 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) — Refund paid to an exporter after submission of documents forged by a third party — Conditions governing the application of penalties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the sanction for which it provides is applicable against an exporter who has requested an export refund on goods, where those goods, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the exporter's contracting partner, were not exported.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.