ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

For the calculation of the amount of the tax credit to which a shareholder who is fully taxable in a Member State with regard to dividends paid by a capital company established in another Member State is entitled, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude the application — if evidence required under the legislation of the first Member State is not adduced — of a provision such as Paragraph 36(2), second sentence, point 3 of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) of 7 September 1990, as amended by the Law of 13 September 1993, under which corporation tax imposed on dividends of foreign origin is set off against a shareholder’s income tax to the level of the fraction of corporation tax imposed on gross dividends distributed by companies in the first Member State. The calculation of the tax credit must be made in relation to the rate of corporation tax on the distributed profits applicable to the dividend-paying company according to the law of the Member State of establishment, however the amount to be imposed may not exceed the amount of the income tax to be paid on dividends received by the recipient shareholder in the Member State in which that shareholder is fully taxable.
2.

Article 2.1, 2.10 and 2.13 and Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation No 1829/2003, Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, and Article 6(4)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, when a substance such as pollen containing genetically modified DNA and genetically modified proteins is not liable to be considered as a genetically modified organism, products such as honey and food supplements containing such a substance constitute ‘food … containing ingredients produced from [genetically modified organisms]’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation No 1829/2003. That classification may be made irrespective of whether contamination by the substance in question was intentional or adventitious.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

(Case C-523/09) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Fees for health inspections and controls in respect of milk production)

2011/C 269/11

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS

Defendant: Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27 of and Annexes IV and VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) — Calculation of fees charged for official controls in respect of milk production — Charging of fees equivalent to the minimum rates applicable under the regulation but higher than the actual costs borne by the competent authorities for official controls

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as enabling a Member State to levy fees at the minimum rates laid down in Annex IV, section B to that regulation without having to adopt a measure of application at national level, even though the costs borne by the competent authorities in connection with the health inspections and controls laid down in that regulation are lower than those rates, when the specified conditions for applying Article 27(6) of that regulation are not satisfied.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Realchemie Nederland BV v Bayer CropScience AG

(Case C-406/09) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments - Definition of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Recognition and enforcement of an order imposing a fine - Directive 2004/48/EC - Intellectual property rights - Infringement of those rights - Measures, procedures and remedies - Sentence - Exequatur procedure - Related legal costs)

2011/C 362/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Realchemie Nederland BV

Defendant: Bayer CropScience AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 1 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) and of Article 14 of 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) — Concept of civil and commercial matters — Breach of the injunction issued by a German court against importing certain pesticides into Germany or marketing them there — Fine — Enforcement of the order imposing that fine — Enforcement proceedings relating to costs orders made abroad in respect of penalties or fines for breach of an injunction against infringement of an intellectual property right

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 1 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 meaning that that regulation applies to the recognition and enforcement of a decision of a court or tribunal that contains an order to pay a fine in order to ensure compliance with a judgment given in a civil and commercial matter;

2. The costs relating to an exequatur procedure brought in a Member State, in the course of which the recognition and enforcement is sought of a judgment given in another Member State in proceedings seeking to enforce an intellectual property right, fall within Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission

(Case C-520/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - European market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 340/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Arkema SA (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Arkema’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringements of the principle of equal treatment and the right to a fair hearing — Failure to have regard to the scope of the guidelines on the method of setting fines

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — French Republic v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-27/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Common Position 2001/931/CFSC - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Freezing of funds applicable to a group included in a list drawn up, revised and amended by the Council of the European Union - Rights of the defence)

2012/C 49/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard and by G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, avocat, D. Vaughan QC and M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister), Council of the European Union, European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and P. Aalto, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 4 December 2008 of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union annulling, so far as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran is concerned, Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-458/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Aide granted by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies - Legislation granting fiscal advantages)

(2012/C 25/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere and H. Leppo, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs;

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors, as regards the undertaking Industrias Domésticas SA, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2012 — Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

(Case C-380/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing the funds of a bank’s subsidiary - Principle of proportionality - Ownership or control of the entity)

2012/C 133/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Melli Bank plc (represented by: D. Anderson and D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister, instructed by S. Gadhia and T. Din, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, Agents), French Republic, (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, L. Butel and E. Ranaivoson, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by: S. Hathaway, Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08 Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union by which that court dismissed an application for the annulment in part of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as the appellant’s name appears in the list of persons, bodies and entities to which those provisions apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Melli Bank plc to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel — Luxembourg) — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

(Case C-29/10) (1)

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Choice made by the parties - Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice - Determination of that law - Notion of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ - Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)

2011/C 139/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heiko Koelzsch

Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel — Interpretation of Article 6(2)(a) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Determination of the law applicable to an action for wrongful dismissal in the absence of a choice by the parties to an individual employment contract — Concept of place‘in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ — Employee working in more than one country but returning systematically to one of them

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2)(a) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which an employee carries out his activities in more than one Contracting State, the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, within the meaning of that provision, is that in which or from which, in the light of all the factors which characterise that activity, the employee performs the greater part of his obligations towards his employer.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-184/10) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition - Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition)

2011/C 204/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mathilde Grasser

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Driving licence issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State normally resident in that other Member State at the time of issue of the licence and never having been the subject of a measure withdrawing the national licence — Whether Member States may refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State on the sole basis of the infringement of the residence condition

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2008/65/EC of 27 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory a driving licence issued by another Member State, where it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in that licence, that the normal residence condition, laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, has not been observed. The fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of that directive to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure that: — urban waste water from the agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 of Valle de Güimar, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Valle de la Orotava, Arenys de Mar, Alcossebre and Cariño is collected in conformity with Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, and — urban waste water from the agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 of Arroyo de la Miel, Arroyo de la Víbora, Estepota (San Pedro de Alcántara), Alhaurín el Grande, Coín, Barbate, Chipiona, Isla Cristina, Matalascañas, Nerja, Tarifa, Torrox Costa, Vejer de la Frontera, Gijón-Este, Llanes, Valles de Güimar, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Los Llanos de Aridane, Arenys de Mar, Pineda de Mar, Ceuta, Alcossebre, Benicarló, Elx (Arenales), Peñíscola, Teulada Moraira (Rada Moraira), Vinaròs, A Coruña, Cariño, Tui, Vigo, Aguiño-Carreira-Ribeira, Baiona, Noia, Santiago, Viveiro and Irán (Hondarribia) is treated in conformity with Article 4(1), (3) and, where applicable (4), of Directive 91/271, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the cited provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Austria) — Gentcho Pavlov, Gregor Famira v Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

(Case C-101/10) (1)

(External relations - Association agreements - National legislation excluding, before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, Bulgarian nationals from inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers - Compatibility of that legislation with the prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions, in the EC-Bulgaria Association Agreement)

2011/C 269/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gentcho Pavlov, Gregor Famira

Defendant: Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Interpretation of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part (OJ 1994 L 358 of 31 December 1994, p. 3) — Prohibition of any discrimination based on nationality as regards working conditions — Compatibility with that article of national rules excluding, before the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, Bulgarian nationals from registration on the list of trainee lawyers — Direct effect of that provision

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination set out in the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision 94/908/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, must be interpreted as not having precluded, before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, legislation of a Member State such as Paragraph 30(1) and (5) of the Austrian Code of Lawyers (Österreichische Rechtsanwaltsordnung), in the version applicable in the main proceedings, under which a Bulgarian national, because of a nationality condition laid down by that legislation, was unable to obtain inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers and, consequently, to obtain a certificate of entitlement to appear in court.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.