ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-272/07) (1)

(Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Failure to implement within the prescribed time-limit)

(2008/C 209/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, Agents,)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with 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)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság, Republic of Hungary) — Criminal proceedings brought by Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós

(Case C-404/07) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Private prosecutor in substitution for the public prosecutor - Testimony of the victim as a witness)

(2008/C 301/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties in the criminal proceedings

Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — National legislation precluding the possibility of the victim giving evidence in criminal proceedings instituted by the victim as a substitute private prosecutor

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings are to be interpreted as not obliging a national court to permit the victim to be heard as a witness in criminal proceedings instituted by a substitute private prosecution such as that in issue in the main proceedings. However, in the absence of such a possibility, it must be possible for the victim to be permitted to give testimony which can be taken into account as evidence.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium)) — Hans Eckelkamp, Natalie Eckelkamp, Monica Eckelkamp, Saskia Eckelkamp, Thomas Eckelkamp, Jessica Eckelkamp, Joris Eckelkamp v Belgische Staat

(Case C-11/07) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Inheritance tax - National rules concerning the assessment of duties on the transfer of immovable property which do not allow for mortgage-related charges relating to the immovable property to be deducted from the value of that property on the ground that, at the time of death, the person whose estate is being administered was residing in another Member State - Restriction - Justification - None)

(2008/C 285/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hans Eckelkamp, Natalie Eckelkamp, Monica Eckelkamp, Saskia Eckelkamp, Thomas Eckelkamp, Jessica Eckelkamp, Joris Eckelkamp

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 17 EC, 18 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC — National legislation on the calculation of duty payable in respect of the acquisition, through inheritance, of immovable property which does not allow for deduction, from the value of the immovable property, of mortgage-related charges relating to that property on the ground that the testator, at the time of death, was resident in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which makes no provision for the deductibility of debts secured on such property where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was, at that time, residing in the first-mentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
1.

Article 291(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ contained therein refers to the person for whom the goods are destined and who intends to assign them to the prescribed end-use, irrespective of whether he makes the customs declaration himself or has that done by a representative within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. That concept does not refer to the representative of that person before the customs authorities, disregarding those cases in which that person is deemed to act in his own name and on his own behalf pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2913/92 and who must therefore be considered an importer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Barcelona) — Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano v Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA

(Case C-313/07) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertaking - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Insolvency proceedings - Assignment of lease)

(2008/C 313/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil (Barcelona, Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kirtruna SL, Elisa Vigano

Defendants: Red Elite de Electrodomésticos SA, Cristina Delgado Fernández de Heredia, Sergio Sabini Celio, Miguel Oliván Bascones, Electro Calbet SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Interpretation of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses does not require, in the event of transfer of an undertaking, the preservation of the lease of commercial premises entered into by the transferor of the undertaking with a third party even though the termination of that lease is likely to entail the termination of contracts of employment transferred to the transferee.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-247/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2003/35/EC - Drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment - Public participation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2009/C 19/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber

(Case C-1/07) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Temporary suspension of a driving licence - Withdrawal of right to drive - Validity of a second driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of temporary suspension)

(2009/C 6/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Siegen

Party in the main proceedings

Frank Weber

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Siegen — Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, in its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during a driving ban before the administrative withdrawal of the right to drive by the Member State of residence

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from refusing to recognise, in its territory, a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose right to drive was withdrawn, in the territory of the first Member State, even though that withdrawal was ordered after the issue of that driving licence, provided that the licence was obtained during a period in which a licence issued in the first Member State was suspended and both the suspension and the withdrawal are based on grounds existing at the date of issue of the second driving licence.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
2.

If the copying function performed by the machines at issue in the main proceedings is secondary in relation to the printing and electronic scanning functions, they must be considered units of automatic data-processing machines within the meaning of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the combined nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, which units, by application of Note 5(C) to that chapter, if they are presented in isolation, fall within heading 8471. In such a case, the relevant subheading must be determined in accordance with Note 3 to Section XVI of the said nomenclature. However, if the importance of that copying function is equivalent to that of the other two functions, those machines must be classified, by application of General Rule 3(b) of the General rules for the interpretation of that nomenclature, under the heading corresponding to the module which gives those machines their essential character. If such identification proved impossible, they must be classified under heading 9009 in accordance with General Rule 3(c);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/19

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-488/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions - Deductible proportion - Calculation - Methods laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) - Obligation to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1))

(2009/C 44/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — Interpretation of Articles 17(5) and 19(1) 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) — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Rules on rounding up

Operative part of the judgment

Member States are not obliged to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) 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 where the proportion of input tax deductible is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods in (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

(Case C-384/07) (1)

(State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Aid declared compatible with the common market - Dispute between the aid recipient and the national authorities concerning the amount of aid unlawfully put into effect - Role of the national court)

(2009/C 44/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 88(3) EC — State aid scheme put into effect without prior notification to the Commission, the final amended version of which, however, following its notification, was declared compatible with the common market, without any express negative decision having been taken with regard to the previous non-notified version — Obligations of national courts deriving from the Commission's decision

Operative part of the judgment

The prohibition on putting State aid into effect laid down in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC does not require a national court, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, to dismiss an action brought by a State aid recipient concerning the amount of that State aid allegedly due in respect of a period predating a decision of the Commission of the European Communities finding that aid to be compatible with the common market.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Allianz SpA, formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v West Tankers Inc.

(Case C-185/07) (1)

(Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope of application - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to issue an order restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before a court of another Member State on the ground that those proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement - New York Convention)

(2009/C 82/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Allianz SpA, formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA

Respondent: West Tankers Inc.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation 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) — Power of a court of a Member State to order a party not to commence court proceedings or to cease those proceedings in another Member State on the ground that they are contrary to an arbitration agreement

Operative part of the judgment

It is incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-492/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/21/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Definition of subscriber)

(2009/C 69/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Article 2(k) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Definition of subscriber.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and in particular Article 2(k) thereof with reference to the definition of ‘subscriber’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung, Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

(Case C-169/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Social security - National health system financed by the State - System of benefits in kind - System of reimbursement of costs paid by the person insured - Authorisation to set up a private outpatient dental clinic - Criterion of assessment of the need to set up a health institution - Objective of maintaining a balanced high-quality medical or hospital service open to all - Objective of preventing a risk of serious harm to the financial balance of the social security system - Consistency - Proportionality)

2009/C 113/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Defendants: Wiener Landesregierung, Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Authorisation of a private hospital to provide outpatient dental medicine — Authorisation subject to an assessment of the needs of the market

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 authorisation is necessary for the setting up of a private health institution in the form of an independent outpatient dental clinic, and authorisation must be refused if there is no need for that outpatient clinic, having regard to the care already offered by contractual practitioners, where that legislation does not also subject group practices to such a system and is not based on a condition capable of adequately circumscribing the exercise by the national authorities of their discretion.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.