ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-162/10) (1)

(Copyright and related rights - Directive 2006/115/EC - Articles 8 and 10 - Concepts of ‘user’ and ‘communication to the public’ - Installation in hotel bedrooms of televisions and/or radios to which the hotelier distributes a broadcast signal)

2012/C 133/05

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd

Defendants: Ireland, Attorney General

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 8(2) and 10(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28) — Broadcasting and communication to the public of phonograms — Right to a single equitable remuneration for artists and producers — Concept of ‘user’ and of ‘communication to the public’ — Installation in hotel rooms of televisions and/or radios to which the hotel company distributes a broadcast signal

Operative part of the judgment

1. A hotel operator which provides in guest bedrooms televisions and/or radios to which it distributes a broadcast signal is a ‘user’ making a ‘communication to the public’ of a phonogram which may be played in a broadcast for the purposes of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property;

2. A hotel operator which provides in guest bedrooms televisions and/or radios to which it distributes a broadcast signal is obliged to pay equitable remuneration under Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 for the broadcast of a phonogram, in addition to that paid by the broadcaster;

3. A hotel operator which provides in guest bedrooms, not televisions and/or radios to which it distributes a broadcast signal, but other apparatus and phonograms in physical or digital form which may be played on or heard from such apparatus, is a ‘user’ making a ‘communication to the public’ of a phonogram within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC. It is therefore obliged to pay ‘equitable remuneration’ under that provision for the transmission of those phonograms;

4. Article 10(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115, which provides for a limitation to the right to equitable remuneration provided for by Article 8(2) of that directive in the case of ‘private use’, does not allow Member States to exempt a hotel operator which makes a ‘communication to the public’ of a phonogram, within the meaning of Article 8(2) of that directive, from the obligation to pay such remuneration.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
3.

For the purposes of ascertaining whether a recording made by a broadcasting organisation, for its own broadcasts, with the facilities of a third party, is covered by the exception laid down in Article 5(2)(d) of Directive 2001/29 in respect of ephemeral recordings, it is for the national court to assess whether, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, that party may be regarded as acting specifically ‘on behalf of’ the broadcasting organisation or, at the very least, ‘under the responsibility’ of that organisation. As regards whether that party may be regarded as acting ‘under the responsibility’ of the broadcasting organisation, it is essential that, vis-à-vis other persons, among others the authors who may be harmed by an unlawful recording of their works, the broadcasting organisation is required to pay compensation for any adverse effects of the acts and omissions of the third party, such as a legally independent external television production company, connected with the recording in question, as if the broadcasting organisation had itself carried out those acts and made those omissions.
1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the recipients the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;
1.

On account of the fact that, in the tendering procedure for a public contract for the supply and management of coffee machines, which was the subject of a contract notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 August 2008, the province of North Holland: — established a technical specification incompatible with Article 23(6) of Directive 2004/18 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007, by requiring that certain products to be supplied were to bear a specific eco-label, rather than using detailed specifications; — established award criteria incompatible with Article 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18 by providing that the fact that certain products to be supplied bore specific labels would give rise to the grant of a certain number of points in the choice of the most economically advantageous tender, without having listed the criteria underlying those labels and without having allowed proof that a product satisfies those underlying criteria by all appropriate means; — established a minimum level of technical ability not authorised by Articles 44(2) and 48 of Directive 2004/18 by requiring, on the basis of suitability requirements and minimum capacity levels stated in the specifications applicable in the context of that contract, that tenderers comply with the ‘criteria of sustainable purchasing and socially responsible business’ and state how they comply with those criteria and ‘contribute to improving the sustainability of the coffee market and to environmentally, socially and economically responsible coffee production’, and — prescribed a clause contrary to the obligation of transparency provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 by requiring that tenderers comply with ‘the criteria of sustainable purchasing and socially responsible business’ and state how they comply with those criteria and ‘contribute to improving the sustainability of the coffee market and to environmentally, socially and economically responsible coffee production’, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the aforementioned provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v SEWAR spol. s r.o.

(Case C-514/10) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Temporal scope - Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union)

2012/C 250/04

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH

Defendant: SEWAR spol. s r. o.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Interpretation of Article 66(2) 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) — Temporal scope — Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

Article 66(2) 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, for that regulation to be applicable for the purpose of the recognition and enforcement of a judgment, it is necessary that at the time of delivery of that judgment the regulation was in force both in the Member State of origin and in the Member State addressed.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — United States of America v Christine Nolan

(Case C-583/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Protection of workers - Collective redundancies - Scope - Closure of an American military base - Information and consultation of workers - Time at which the consultation obligation arises - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2012/C 379/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United States of America

Defendant: Christine Nolan

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Employer’s obligation to inform and consult the workers’ representatives — Determination of the time at which that obligation arises

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), by decision of 6 December 2010.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-544/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Public health - Consumer information and protection - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Concepts of ‘nutrition claims’ and ‘health claims’ - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Description of a wine as ‘easily digestible’ - Reference to reduced acidity levels - Beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol - Prohibition of health claims - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(1) - Freedom to choose an occupation - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Compatibility)

(2012/C 331/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsches Weintor eG

Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU in conjunction with Articles 15(1) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of Article 4(3) in conjunction with Articles 2(2)(5) or 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 (OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16) — Description of a wine as easily digestible with a reference to reduced acidity — Prohibition of health claims made in relation to beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol — Meaning of ‘health claims’

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘health claim’ cover a description such as ‘easily digestible’ that is accompanied by a reference to the reduced content of substances frequently perceived by consumers as being harmful.

2. The fact that a producer or distributor of wine is prohibited under Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 116/2010, without exception, from using a claim of the kind at issue in the main proceedings, even if that claim is inherently correct, is compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
1.

Declares that, by failing, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the supplementary letter of formal notice issued on 18 March 2010 by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain, relating, inter alia, to the recovery from Industrias Domésticas SA of aid which, under Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aid in Spain which the central and several autonomous governments granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small electric appliances, was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Wendel Investissement SA, Lagardère SCA and Lagardère SCA v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, European Commission, Wendel Investissement SA

(Joined Cases C-553/10 P and C-554/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market - Annulment of the decision to approve an investment company as the purchaser of the assets sold - Significance of a trustee’s possible lack of independence)

2013/C 9/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, avocats), Wendel Investissement SA (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon and C. Baldon, avocats), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, avocats), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision D(2004)203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) — Significance of the trustee’s possible lack of independence — Distortion of the facts — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS;

3. Orders Wendel Investissement SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-545/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 91/440/EEC - Development of the Community’s railways - Article 10(7) - Regulatory body - Competences - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Article 4(1) - Charging framework - Article 6(2) - Measures intended to provide the infrastructure manager with incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges - Article 7(3) - Setting charges for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities - Cost directly incurred as a result of operating the railway service - Article 11 - Performance scheme - Article 30(5) - Regulatory body - Competence - Administrative appeal against the decisions of the regulatory body)

2013/C 252/06

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all provisions necessary to comply with Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), and with Articles 4(1), 6(2), 7(3), 11 and 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4(1), 6(2), 11 and 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Commission, the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-556/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(2) and 14(2) - Infrastructure manager - Organisational and decision-making independence - Holding company structure - Directive 2001/14 - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) - Setting charges on the basis of direct costs - Levying of charges - Direct costs - Total costs - Directive 2001/14 - Article 6(2) - No incentive to reduce costs - Directive 91/440 - Article 10(7) - Directive 2001/14 - Article 30(4) - Regulatory body - Powers)

2013/C 114/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents, and R. Van der Hout, advocaat)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the necessary provisions to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 2, 6(2), 7(3), 8(1), 14(2) and 30(4) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale

(Case C-251/11) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5(1) - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Measures to prevent the abuse of such contracts - Conversion of the previous fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration - Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract)

2012/C 126/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martial Huet

Defendant: Université de Bretagne occidentale

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrative Court of Rennes — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract where that contract is converted into an employment contract of indefinite duration — Principles of equivalence and of non-reduction of the earlier level of protection

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, which provides in its national legislation for conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into an employment contract of indefinite duration when the fixed-term employment contracts have reached a certain duration, is not obliged to require that the employment contract of indefinite duration reproduces in identical terms the principal clauses set out in the previous contract. However, in order not to undermine the practical effect of, or the objectives pursued by, Directive 1999/70, that Member State must ensure that the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into an employment contract of indefinite duration is not accompanied by material amendments to the clauses of the previous contract in a way that is, overall, unfavourable to the person concerned when the subject-matter of that person’s tasks and the nature of his functions remain unchanged.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011
1.

Declares that by incorrectly and incompletely transposing into national law First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 November 2005 and Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/68, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(3) of Directive 73/239 and Articles 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49;