ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Articles 49 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where foreign savings balances, or income therefrom, are not disclosed to the tax authorities of a Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member State from applying a statutory rule which, in order to compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring foreign credit balances, provides for a recovery period of twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies in the case of savings balances, or income therefrom, held in that Member State, in which such effective means do exist?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 25 March 2008 — G.C. Deschaumes v Belgian State

(Case C-125/08)

(2008/C 142/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: G. Deschaumes

Respondent: Belgian State

Question referred

Should Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) be construed as meaning that the prescribed communication of a customs debt to the person liable for payment can lawfully be effected only after the customs debt has been entered in the accounts or, in other words, that the communication of a customs debt to the person liable for payment, as prescribed in Article 221(1) of the CCC, must always be preceded by its entry in the accounts if it is to be lawful and to comply with Article 221(1)of the CCC?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
1.

Can a beverage which contains a certain amount of distilled alcohol but which otherwise corresponds to the definition of heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be classified under that heading if the beverage in question is a fermented beverage which, as a result of the addition of water and particular ingredients, has lost the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from a particular fruit or natural product?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-157/08)

(2008/C 171/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Articles 49 and 56 EC be interpreted to mean that, where foreign savings balances or income therefrom are not disclosed to the tax authority of a Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member State from applying legislation which, to compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring foreign balances, provides for a recovery period of twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies in the case of savings balances or income therefrom held in the Member State where such effective means do in fact exist?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Landwirtschaftsamt (German Agricultural Office) v Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter and the Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

(Case C-193/08)

(2008/C 183/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter and the Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons be interpreted as meaning that, as regards access to a self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof, only self-employed persons within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Annex I to the agreement are to be afforded no less favourable treatment in the host country than that accorded to its own nationals, or does this also apply to self-employed frontier workers within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Annex I to the agreement (1)?

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/12

Appeal brought on 13 February 2008 by Gateway, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2007 in Case T-434/05: Gateway, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-57/08 P)

(2008/C 171/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gateway, Inc. (represented by: C. R. Jones, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Case T-434/05;

— allow in its entirety the appellant's opposition to the registration of the trade mark applied for;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance made the following errors:

a) The terms ‘media gateway’ and ‘gateway’ have a very specific meaning in the IT market for particular forms of device which convert one protocol or format to another. However, the Court of First Instance wrongly held that when ‘gateway’ was incorporated as an element of the mark applied for it served to designate descriptive characteristics of all the goods or services covered by the contested specification, whereas in fact none of the goods or services covered by the contested mark are listed as ‘media gateways’ or ‘gateways’.

b) It wrongly defined the relevant public as made up of consumers who only purchase computer goods and services, rather than consumers of all the goods and services covered by the contested specification.

c) It wrongly held that the conflicting marks are not visually, phonetically or conceptually similar.

d) It wrongly held that the question of similarity in respect of two conflicting word marks should be subject to the condition that the overall visual, phonetic or conceptual impression produced by the composite word sign be dominated by the part which is represented by the earlier mark.

e) When conduction its assessment of the similarity between the conflicting marks it failed to give sufficient weight to the distinctiveness of ‘gateway’ as an earlier trade mark of the appellant's for computer goods and services within the relevant target public.

f) It failed to give sufficient regard to the fact that trade marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess, enjoy greater protection than marks with a less distinctive character.

g) It wrongly concluded that ‘gateway’ does not have an independent distinctive role within the mark applied for.

h) It wrongly held that the likelihood of confusion should be subject to the condition that the overall impression produced by the composite sign be dominated by the part which is represented by the earlier mark.
1.

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1). Does Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 apply in the case where the protected indication has been validly registered in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 21 April 2008 — Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited v Omnipol Ltd

(Case C-167/08)

(2008/C 183/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited

Defendant: Omnipol Ltd

Question referred

Is a creditor who pursues a claim in the name and for the account of his debtor a party within the meaning of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1), that is, a party who can lodge an appeal against a decision on the request for declaration of enforceability, even if he has not formally appeared as a party in the proceedings in which another creditor of that debtor applied for that declaration?

(1) 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/15

Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-241/08)

(2008/C 197/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not adopting the laws or regulations necessary to transpose correctly Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— Order the French Republic to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission refers to two grounds for complaint in support of its action, alleging the infringement of Article 6(2) and 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (‘the Habitats Directive’), respectively.

By its first ground for complaint, the applicant insists on the clarity of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, which prohibits any deterioration of protected habitats. The introduction into national law of the concept of ‘significant effects’ in order to limit the application of the abovementioned provision to certain human activities, is therefore not justified. Equally, the national legislature may not assert in a peremptory fashion that certain activities such as hunting or fishing ‘do not cause a disturbance’ to ‘Natura 2000’ sites, even if they are carried out for a temporary period or under the national legislation in force.

By its second ground for complaint, the Commission points out first that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to appropriate assessment, except in strictly defined cases. The defendant's legislation is problematic in the light of Community law since it systematically exempts from the procedure for assessment of the environmental implications the works, projects or schemes provided for under ‘Natura 2000’ contracts.

The Commission points out second that, under French law, there are projects which do not require authorisation or administrative approval and which therefore avoid the assessment procedure. Yet some of these projects have significant effects on the ‘Natura 2000’ sites, having regard to the objectives of conservation of species.

According to the Commission, national legislation should finally impose on applicants a clear obligation to provide for alternative solutions where there are negative assessments of the implications of a project or management plan for a site.

(1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 also require that, in the country of the refugee's nationality, (a) an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in that regard if protection can be assured only with the help of multinational troops, (b) the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83, which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 18 of that directive, and/or (c) the security situation be stable and the general living conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/31

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2008 — Futura Immobiliare Srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria

(Case C-254/08)

(2008/C 209/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Futura Immobiliare Srl Hotel Futura and Others

Defendant: Comune di Casoria

Question referred

The question arising is whether the national provisions contained in Article 58 et seq of Legislative Decree No 507 of 1993 and the transitional provisions maintaining them in force, by virtue of Article 11 of Presidential Decree No 158 of 1999, as subsequently amended, and Article 1(184) of Law No 296 of 2006, so ensuring the continuation of a system, fiscal in nature, designed to cover the costs of the waste disposal service and postponing the introduction of a tariff regime in which the cost of the service is borne by the persons producing and delivering the waste, are compatible with the abovementioned Article 15 of the Community Directive 75/442/EEC (1) which replaces Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and the principle of ‘the polluter pays’ referred to.

(1) OJ L 194, p. 39.

(2) OJ L 78, p. 32.
4.

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: Would it be possible — under Community law — for a municipality which is affected by the inclusion of a particular site in the list to claim in legal proceedings after final adoption of the list that the list infringes Community law, because its interests were not, or not sufficiently, taken into account?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/27

Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission

(Case C-268/08 P)

(2008/C 223/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by: C Meidanis. lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declaration that the appeal is admissible and well-founded;

— Annulment, as necessary, of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04;

— Order as appropriate that costs be paid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds in support of his appeal.

In his first ground of appeal, Mr Michail claims that the Court of First Instance erred in the interpretation and application of Community law and failed to comply with its duty to state reasons in judgments, in that the Court acknowledged, in the contested judgment, that the Commission was partly responsible for the appellant feeling that he was subject to psychological harassment, within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, but nonetheless rejected his action as unfounded.

In his second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance distorted the sense of the facts presented for its assessment, in particular by examining the facts individually and not in their overall context, and that the Court made several errors in the legal classification of those facts.

In his third ground of appeal, the appellant lastly criticises the decision of the Court of First Instance to reject as inadmissible, for lack of precision, the numerous pleas in law on which he relied in support of his action, alleging, inter alia, infringement of Articles 21a, 22a and 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. By breaking down his action into several parts, the Court of First Instance altered the essential nature of the action in its objectives and structure.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC, as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies or, in any event, by failing to communicate such provision to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Does the failure of a Member State (in this case Spain) to give notification under Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) of its intention to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements preclude, by reason of the word ‘replace’ in Article 31 of that Framework Decision, that Member State from using with another Member State (in this case France), which has made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision, procedures other than that of the European arrest warrant?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Miloud Rimoumi and Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick v Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration

(Case C-276/08)

(2008/C 236/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Miloud Rimoumi and Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick

Defendant: Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration

Question referred

Are Articles 2(2)(a), 3(1) and 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) to be interpreted as applying only to those family members who acquired that status prior to the date on which the Union citizen, whom they intend to accompany or join, exercised his/her right of free movement conferred by Article 39 of the EC Treaty, or, on the contrary, is any citizen of the Union who has exercised his/her right of free movement and become established in a Member State other than that of which that person is a national entitled to be joined by a family member, without the latter having to satisfy a condition as to the time at which he/she acquired that status?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA

(Case C-320/08)

(2008/C 236/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Multiservice Srl

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2), Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive 1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

(1) OJ L 108, p. 51.

(2) OJ L 171, p. 12.

(3) Commission Recommendation.

(4) Commission Recommendation.
2.

Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of the second pharmacy in communes with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as population over that amount of at least 50 per cent of the levels, distance of at least 3 000 metres from the existing pharmacy, and existence of particular requirements of the pharmacy service in relation to the topographical and road conditions, to be assessed by both the health units (local health companies) and the local association of pharmacists or in any event by the authorities competent for matters of organisation and review of the pharmacy service?
1.

Is a contract for the supply of services (here, the supply of water and treatment of waste water), the content of which does not provide for the contracting authority to make a direct payment of consideration to the supplier but for the supplier to be afforded the right to collect consideration under private law from third parties, to be classified for that reason alone as a service concession within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), as distinct from a service contract for pecuniary interest within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2004/17?
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) lodged on 5 August 2008 — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB (by his mother and litigation friend) (FC)

(Case C-358/08)

(2008/C 260/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aventis Pasteur SA

Defendant: OB

Question referred

Is it consistent with the European Product Liability Directive (1) for the laws of a Member State to allow substitution of a new defendant to a claim brought under the Directive after the 10 year period for enforcing rights under Article 11 of the Directive has expired in circumstances where the only person named as a defendant in proceedings instituted during the 10 year period was someone who does not fall within Article 3 of the Directive?

(1) Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, p. 29).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/15

Appeal brought on 21 February 2008 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2007 in Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04 Athanasios Pitsiorlas v Council of the European Union and European Central Bank

(Case C-84/08 P)

(2008/C 285/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (represented by: D. Papafilippou, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

By order of 3 July 2008, the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ruled that Athanasios Pitsiorlas had to bear the costs.