ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany)) — Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler v Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau

(Case C-274/09) (1)

(Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service concession - Rescue service - Distinction between ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’)

2011/C 139/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler

Defendant: Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau

Interveners: Malteser Hilfdienst eV, Bayerisches Rotes Kreuz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) and Article 1(4) 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) — Concepts of ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’ — Contract relating to the supply of emergency medical assistance services, concluded between the contracting authority and aid organisations, which provides that the payment for the services supplied depends on negotiations between those organisations and third parties such as social security institutions

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(d) and (4) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the economic operator selected is fully remunerated by persons other than the contracting authority which awarded the contract concerning rescue services, where it runs an operating risk, albeit a very limited one, by reason inter alia of the fact that the amount of the usage fees in question depends on the result of annual negotiations with third parties, and where it is not assured full coverage of the costs incurred in managing its activities in compliance with the principles laid down by national law, that contract must be classified as a ‘service concession’ within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH

(Case C-316/09) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Prohibition on the advertising to the general public of medicinal products available only on prescription - Definition of ‘advertising’ - Information communicated to the competent authority - Information accessible on the internet)

2011/C 186/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

Defendant: Merckle GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 88(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) — Prohibition on advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are available on medical prescription only — Concept of ‘advertising’ — Advertising in relation to a medicinal product providing access to information only to persons who undertake an Internet search and which contains only those indications communicated to the competent authority in the context of the marketing authorisation procedure relating to the medicinal product and which is available to patients on purchasing the product

Operative part of the judgment

Article 88(1)(a) 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 meaning that it does not prohibit the dissemination on a website, by a pharmaceutical undertaking, of information relating to medicinal products available on medical prescription only, where that information is accessible on the website only to someone who seeks to obtain it and that dissemination consists solely in the faithful reproduction of the packaging of the medicinal product, in accordance with Article 62 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, and in the literal and complete reproduction of the package leaflet or the summary of the product’s characteristics, which have been approved by the authorities with competence in relation to medicinal products. On the other hand, the dissemination, on such a website, of information relating to a medicinal product which has been selected or rewritten by the manufacturer, which can be explained only by an advertising purpose, is prohibited. It is for the referring court to determine whether and to what extent the activities at issue in the main proceedings constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
2.

Article 98(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 40/94, as amended by Regulation No 3288/94, must be interpreted as meaning that a coercive measure, such as a periodic penalty payment, ordered by a Community trade mark court by application of its national law, in order to ensure compliance with a prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement which it has issued, has effect in Member States to which the territorial scope of such a prohibition extends other than the Member State of that court, under the conditions laid down, in Chapter III 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, with regard to the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the national law of one of those other Member States does not contain a coercive measure similar to that ordered by the Community trade mark court, the objective pursued by that measure must be attained by the competent court of that other Member State by having recourse to the relevant provisions of its national law which are such as to ensure that the prohibition is complied with in an equivalent manner.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/9

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-453/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses)

2011/C 204/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Beaupère-Manokha, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5. januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompakningsselskabet af 1. november 2005 A/S (C-400/09), Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S (C-207/10) v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.), Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme

(Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 7(2) - Pharmaceutical products - Parallel imports - Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark - New packaging indicating as the repackager the holder of the marketing authorisation on whose instructions the product was repackaged - Physical repackaging carried out by a separate undertaking)

2011/C 298/03

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5. januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompakningsselskabet af 1. november 2005 A/S (C-400/09), Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S (C-207/10)

Defendants: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.), Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of the Court’s judgments in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma and in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, and of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Repackaging of a medicinal product which was the subject of parallel importation — Parallel importer which is the holder of the marketing authorisation for an imported medicinal product and which indicates itself, on the new packaging, as being the repackager, notwithstanding the fact that the purchase and repackaging of the medicinal product were in fact carried out by a separate company

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as not allowing the proprietor of a trade mark relating to a pharmaceutical product which is the subject of parallel imports to oppose the further marketing of that product in repackaged form on the sole ground that the new packaging indicates as the repackager not the undertaking which, on instructions, actually repackaged the product and holds an authorisation to do so, but the undertaking which holds the marketing authorisation for the product, on whose instructions the repackaging was carried out, and which assumes liability for the repackaging.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission

(Case C-194/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Preferential electricity tariff - Finding that there is no aid - Measure amended and extended - Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(v) - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

2011/C 269/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, T. Müller-Ibold and T. Graf, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Salerno, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-332/06 Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v Commission of the European Communities, by which that court dismissed the action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2006 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the extension of the preferential electricity tariff regimes granted to some energy intensive industries in Italy (State Aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06)), in so far as it concerns the electricity tariff for the two plants producing aluminium owned by the applicant in Fusina (Veneto) and Portovesme (Sardinia)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09)

(Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09) (1)

(Copyright - Satellite broadcasting - Directive 93/83/EEC - Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 - Communication to the public by satellite - Satellite package provider - Single communication to the public by satellite - Persons to whom that communication may be attributed - Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)

2011/C 355/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV (C-431/09), Airield NV (C-432/09)

Respondents: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (b) and Article 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Exclusive right of the author to authorise communication of his works — Transmission by a broadcasting organisation of programme-carrying signals to a digital television supplier via an independent satellite — Subsequent retransmission of those signals — Authorisation of the copyright holders

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as requiring a satellite package provider to obtain authorisation from the right holders concerned for its intervention in the direct or indirect transmission of television programmes, such as the transmission at issue in the main proceedings, unless the right holders have agreed with the broadcasting organisation concerned that the protected works will also be communicated to the public through that provider, on condition, in the latter situation, that the provider’s intervention does not make those works accessible to a new public.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Magatte Gueye and Valentín Salmerón Sánchez

(Joined Cases C-483/09 and C-1/10) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Domestic crimes - Obligation to impose as an ancillary penalty an injunction prohibiting the offender from approaching the victim of the offence - Choice of forms of penalty and level of penalty - Compatibility with Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Framework Decision - Provision of national law excluding mediation in criminal cases - Compatibility with Article 10 of the Framework Decision)

2011/C 319/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

Parties in the main proceedings

Magatte Gueye (C-483/09) intervener: X

Valentín Salmerón Sánchez (C-1/10) intervener: Y

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Interpretation of Articles 2, 8 and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — Respect for and recognition of victims — Right to protection — Mediation in criminal proceedings — Agreement between victim and offender

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

1. Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the mandatory imposition of an injunction to stay away for a minimum period, provided for as an ancillary penalty by the criminal law of a Member State, on persons who commit crimes of violence within the family, even when the victims of those crimes oppose the application of such a penalty.

2. Article 10(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as permitting Member States, having regard to the particular category of offences committed within the family, to exclude recourse to mediation in all criminal proceedings relating to such offences.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — Commission v Republic of Hungary

(Case C-253/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Purchase of property for use as a new principal residence - Establishing the basis of assessment for the tax levied on the purchase of real property - Deduction of the value of the residence sold from the value of the residence purchased - Exclusion of that deduction if the property sold is not situated within the national territory)

2012/C 32/05

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich and M.Z. Fehér, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement — National legislation on the tax levied on the purchase of real property which, when the basis of assessment for that tax is established, makes the deduction of the value of the residence sold from the value of the residence purchased conditional upon the residence sold being located within the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 26.9.2009.
1.

Declares that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC by making no provision for reimbursement in respect of non-hospital medical care provided in another Member State which does not involve the use of major and costly equipment exhaustively listed in the national legislation, other than in the circumstances specified in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, or, to the extent that Decree-Law No 177/92 of 13 August 1992 laying down the conditions for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred abroad allows the reimbursement of such expenses, by making reimbursement subject to prior authorisation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, Hungary, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-504/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - National allocation plan for emission allowances for the Republic of Poland for the period 2008 to 2012 - Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87 - Respective competences of the Commission and the Member States - Equal treatment)

2012/C 151/02

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková and K. Herrmann and by E. White, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Commission: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar, M. Nowacki and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Hungary, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Maurici, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the Republic of Poland: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Romania (represented by V. Angelescu and A. Cazacioc, advisers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 23 September 2009 in Case T-183/07 Poland v Commission, by which that Court annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Ne ultra petita principle — Limits of judicial review — Infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Misinterpretation of Article 296 TFEU, of Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and of Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 3(1) of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Romania and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.