ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-310/08) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State, and of their children who are themselves nationals of a Member State - National of a Member State ceasing to work and leaving the host Member State - Enrolment of the children at a school - No means of subsistence - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Directive 2004/38)

2010/C 100/03

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: London Borough of Harrow

Defendants: Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 475) — Wife who is a national of a non-member country and her children, themselves nationals of a Member State, who have joined her husband, a national of that Member State, in the United Kingdom where he was employed — Right of residence of the wife and children following the husband’s loss of status as an employed person and his departure from the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992, without such a right being conditional on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that State.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

(Case C-542/08) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Special length-of-service increment for university professors provided for by national legislation held to be incompatible with Community law by a judgment of the Court - Limitation period - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

2010/C 148/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friedrich G. Barth

Defendant: Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interepretation of Art. 39 EC and Art. 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — National legislation providing for a special length-of-service increment for university professors, the incompatibility of which with Community law, in its earlier version, was established in Case C-224/01 Köbler — Amended legislation which, by suspending the time-limit for taking advantage of the rights at issue only as from the date of that Court judgment, disadvantages professors who were deprived of that increment by reason of the previous legislation incompatible with Community law

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law does not preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings making claims for payment of special length-of-service increments — which a worker who had exercised his rights to freedom of movement was denied prior to the delivery of the judgment of 30 September 2003 in Case C-224/01 Köbler, on the basis of a domestic law incompatible with Community law — subject to a three-year limitation rule.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v European Commission

(Case C-414/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - General allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises - Deadline for completion of investment projects - Discretion of the Commission)

2010/C 134/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2008 in Case T-176/06 Sviluppo Basilicata v Commission by which the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) dismissed its application for, first, annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1 and, second, damages for the harm purportedly caused by that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-352/08) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Whether applicable to transaction tax)

2010/C 179/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.1) — Concept of tax evasion or tax avoidance — Transaction aimed at escaping a national tax not referred to in the Directive’s list of taxes which may not be levied

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States is to be interpreted as meaning that the favourable arrangements which that directive introduces may not be withheld from a taxpayer who has sought, by way of a legal stratagem involving a company merger, to avoid the levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely transaction tax, where that tax does not come within the scope of application of that directive.

(1) OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-160/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public service contracts - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public emergency services - Emergency ambulance and qualified patient transport services - Obligation of transparency - Article 45 EC - Activities connected with the exercise of official authority - Article 86(2) EC - Services of general economic interest)

(2010/C 161/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and D. Kukovec, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and Y. de Vries, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and 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) — Practice of local authorities of awarding directly, without open procedures for the award of public contracts and in breach of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, contracts and concessions for the supply of public ambulance services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to publish notices of the results of the procedure for the award of contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, in conjunction with Article 16 thereof or, since 1 February 2006, under Article 22 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in conjunction with Article 35(4) thereof in relation to the award in accordance with the tender model of contracts for public emergency ambulance and qualified patient transport services in the Länder of Saxony-Anhalt, North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony and Saxony;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08)

(Joined Cases C-447/08 and C-448/08) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Gambling - Offer of gambling via the internet - Promotion of gambling organised in other Member States - Activities reserved to public or non-profit-making bodies - Criminal penalties)

2010/C 234/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties in the main proceedings

Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Arts. 12, 43, 49 and 54 EC — National legislation prohibiting, by means of criminal penalties, the promotion of participation in a lottery only in the case where it is organised in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main actions, which prohibits the advertising to residents of that State of gambling organised for the purposes of profit by private operators in other Member States;

2. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the promotion of gambling operated on national territory without a licence. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is true of the national legislation at issue in the main actions.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

(Case C-550/08) (1)

(Directive 92/12/EEC - Products subject to excise duty - Importation of raw tobacco not subject to excise duty under the inward processing procedure - Processing into cut tobacco - Movement between Member States - Accompanying document)

2010/C 221/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Articles 5(2) and 15(4) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Cut tobacco subject to excise duty, manufactured in a Member State under an inward processing procedure in the form of a suspension system from raw tobacco which was not subject to excise duty when it was imported into Community territory — Whether, for purposes of applying the duty-suspension arrangements to the intra-Community movement of that tobacco product, an accompanying document drawn up by the consignor in accordance with Article 18(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC is required

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that products subject to excise duty (such as manufactured tobacco) which are manufactured from products not subject to excise duty (such as raw tobacco) and imported into the Community under the inward-processing procedure are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements, within the meaning of that provision, even though they have become products subject to excise duty only by virtue of having been processed within Community territory, with the result that they can move between Member States without the administrative authorities being entitled to insist on production of the administrative or commercial document provided for in Article 18(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.03.2009.
1.

A ‘sample’, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 5(6) 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, is a specimen of a product which is intended to promote the sales of that product and which allows the characteristics and qualities of that product to be assessed without resulting in final consumption, other than where final consumption is inherent in such promotional transactions. That term cannot be limited, in a general way, by national legislation to specimens presented in a form which is not available for sale or to the first of a series of identical specimens given by a taxable person to the same recipient, unless that legislation allows account to be taken of the nature of the product represented and of the specific business context of each transaction in which those specimens are distributed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen, Federal Republic of Germany, European Commission

(Case C-537/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations)

2011/C 55/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (represented by: M. Schütte, S. Zühlke and P. Werner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Freistaat Thüringen (represented by: A. Weitbrecht and M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and W. D. Plessing, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and K. Gross, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Koenig, professor)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2008 in Case T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12), in so far as that decision concerns the financial assistance granted to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kahla Thüringen Porzellan GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-508/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide maritime transport services - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Cabotage services within a Member State - Obligation to conclude public service contracts on a non-discriminatory basis - Conclusion of an exclusive contract, without a prior call for tenders, before the date of accession of a Member State to the European Union)

2010/C 346/11

Language of the case: Maltese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, L. Spiteri and A. Fenech, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — Conclusion of an exclusive contract, without a prior call for tenders, for the provision of maritime transport between Malta and Gozo

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paint Graphos Soc. coop. arl (C-78/08), Adige Carni Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-79/08), and Ministero delle Finanze v Michele Franchetto (C-80/08)

(Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - State aid - Tax advantages granted to cooperative societies - Categorisation as State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC - Compatibility with the common market - Conditions)

2011/C 311/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate (C-78/08), Adige Carni Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation (C-79/08), Ministero delle Finanze (C-80/08)

Defendants: Paint Graphos Soc. coop. arl (C-78/08), Agenzia delle Entrate, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-79/08), Michele Franchetto (C-80/08)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 87 EC and 88 EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 1) and Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25) — Concept of aid granted the by Member States — Italian law granting tax advantages to agricultural and producers’ and workers’ cooperative societies

Operative part of the judgment

Tax exemptions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, granted to producers’ and workers’ cooperative societies under national legislation such as that set out in Article 11 of Decree No 601/1973 of the President of the Republic of 29 September 1973 concerning rules on tax benefits, in the version in force from 1984 to 1993, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC only in so far as all the requirements for the application of that provision are met. As regards a situation such as that which gave rise to the disputes before the referring court, it is for that court to determine in particular whether the tax exemptions in question are selective and whether they may be justified by the nature or general scheme of the national tax system of which they form part, by establishing in particular whether the cooperative societies at issue in the main proceedings are in fact in a comparable situation to that of other operators in the form of profit making legal entities and, if that is indeed the case, whether the more advantageous tax treatment enjoyed by those cooperative societies, first, forms an inherent part of the essential principles of the tax system applicable in the Member State concerned and, second, complies with the principles of consistency and proportionality.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.