ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/5

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

(Case C-150/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Late payment of own resources - Default interest payable - Accounting rules - ATA system)

(2009/C 69/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J.A. Anjos and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6(2), 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) — Refusal to pay default interest in the case of late payment of own resources under the ATA system — Accounting rules

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the default interest payable on account of the late payment of own resources under the ATA system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2) and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg

(Case C-383/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(1) to (3) - Novel foods and novel food ingredients)

(2009/C 55/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Stadt Regensburg

Joined party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(d) and (e) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1) — Novel character of a food marketed in a limited geographical area of the Community (San Marino) shortly before the entry into force of the regulation when the food is manufactured from ingredients the habitual human consumption of which is disputed or can be established only by reference to a non-member country (Japan) — Obligation to subject a food to a control

Operative part of the judgment

1. Importation of a food product into San Marino before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients is not a relevant factor for assessing whether that product meets the requirement relating to human consumption to a significant degree within the European Community within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation.

2. The fact that all the individual ingredients of a food product meet the requirement laid down in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 258/97, or have a safe history, cannot be regarded as sufficient for that regulation not to apply to the food product concerned. In order to decide whether that food product should be classified as a novel food within the meaning of Regulation No 258/97, the competent national authority must proceed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the characteristics of the food product and of the production process.

3. The fact that all of the algae contained in a food product within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation No 258/97 meet the requirement relating to human consumption to a significant degree within the European Community, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is not sufficient for that regulation not to apply to that product.

4. Experience regarding the safety of a food product existing exclusively outside Europe is not sufficient to establish that the product concerned falls within the category of food products ‘having a history of safe food use’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation No 258/97.

5. It is not incumbent upon an undertaking to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 13 of Regulation No 258/97.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
1.

Community law, as it currently stands, contains no specific requirement concerning the method of rounding amounts of value added tax. In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods for rounding amounts of value added tax, although those States must, when so deciding, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, particularly the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality. In particular, Community law, first, does not preclude the application of a national rule which requires an amount of value added tax to be rounded up whenever the fraction of the smallest unit of currency concerned is at or above 0.50, and, second, does not require that taxable persons be allowed to round down any amount of value added tax which includes a fraction of the smallest unit of national currency.
1.

The ‘location of release’, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, is determined by all the information relating to the location of the release submitted by the notifier to the competent authorities of the Member State on whose territory that release is to take place in the context of the procedures referred to in Articles 6, 7, 8, 13, 17, 20 or 23 of that directive.
1.

Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose or to transpose completely and/or correctly Article 1(2)(b) in conjunction with Annex I; the second sentence of Article 9(1); Article 9(8)(a)(i) and (iii); Article 23(2); Article 30(2) to (4); Article 31(1)(c); Article 38(1); point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 43; the second subparagraph of Article 44(2); Article 44(3) and (4); the first paragraph of Article 46; Article 48(2)(f); points (d) and (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 55(1); Article 55(3); the second and third subparagraphs of Article 67(2); the first paragraph of point (a) of Article 68; Article 72, and Article 74(1) 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Point 4(a) of chapter I of Annex A to Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit Member States to deviate from the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A and charge a fee the scale of which varies according to the size of establishments and diminishes according to the number of animals slaughtered per animal type; Point 4(b) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not required to comply with the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A and may charge a fee the scale of which varies according to the size of an establishment and the number of animals slaughtered per animal type, where it is established that those factors have an actual effect on the actual costs incurred in carrying out the veterinary inspections and controls required by the relevant provisions of Community law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Waterford Wedgwood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-398/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark WATERFORD - Refusal to register by the Board of Appeal)

2009/C 153/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Waterford Wedgwood plc (represented by: J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd (represented by: P. Hagman, asianajaja, and J. Palm, tavaramerkkiasiamies), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05 Assembled Investments (Proprietary) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) annulling Decision R 240/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2004 which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition filed by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘WATERFORD’ in respect of goods in Classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Waterford Wedgwood plc to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
1.

The concept of ‘public postal services’ in Article 13A(1)(a) 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, must be interpreted to cover operators, whether they are public or private, who undertake to provide, in a Member State, all or part of the universal postal service, as defined in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — The Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV

(Case C-429/07) (1)

(Competition policy - Articles 81 EC and 82 EC - Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Written observations submitted by the Commission - National dispute concerning the deductibility from tax of a fine imposed by a Commission decision)

2009/C 180/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Defendant: X BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Submission by the Commission of written observations in the course of national proceedings concerning the deductibility for tax purposes of a fine imposed by the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the Commission of the European Communities to submit on its own initiative written observations to a national court of a Member State in proceedings relating to the deductibility from taxable profits of the amount of a fine or a part thereof imposed by the Commission for infringement of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC.

(1) OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-568/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Opticians - Conditions of establishment - Establishment and operation of opticians’ shops - Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court - Lump sum)

2009/C 180/18

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply fully with the Court’s judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece concerning infringement of Articles 43 and 48 EC with regard to the ownership, establishment and operation of shops for the sale of optical articles — National law allowing only authorised opticians to own opticians’ shops — Application for the setting of a penalty payment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to Article 228 EC expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay into the ‘European Community own resources’ account of the Commission of the European Communities a lump sum of EUR 1 million.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-269/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Savings-pension bonus - Full liability to tax)

2009/C 267/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Blaschke and M. Lumma, Agents, W. Wellisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC, and of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition I 1968(II), p. 475) — National legislation concerning incentive allowances for savings pensions, the grant of which is conditional upon full liability to taxation in the Member State, providing for the repayment of the allowance on termination of such liability and prohibiting the use of capital accrued in accordance with such a scheme for the acquisition of residential property occupied by the owner unless the property is situated within the territory of that Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by introducing and maintaining the provisions for complementary pensions in Paragraphs 79 to 99 of the Federal Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and Article 18 EC, in so far as those provisions: — deny cross-border workers and their spouses the right to the savings pension bonus, unless they are fully liable to tax in that Member State; — prohibit cross-border workers from using the subsidised capital for the acquisition or construction of an owner-occupied dwelling unless the property is situated in Germany, and — provide that the bonus be reimbursed on termination of full liability to tax in that Member State;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
1.

Declares that, by reason, firstly, of the exclusion, by virtue of Section III, point 2.1.3(b), second paragraph, of the contract notice in question issued by ERGA OSE on 16 October 2003, numbered 2003/S 205-185214 and 2003/S 206-186119, of foreign consultancy firms or consultants who had submitted an expression of interest in ERGA OSE tendering procedures in the six months preceding the date of their expression of interest in the current competition and who had declared qualifications corresponding to certificate categories different from those now required and, secondly, of the failure to distinguish in Section IV, point 2, of that notice between qualitative selection criteria and award criteria for the contract in question, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 34(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-438/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Failure to require more stringent treatment of nitrogen in all treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent)

2009/C 282/06

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen, L. Parpala, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (OJ 1998 L 67, p. 29) — Failure to ensure, at the latest by 31 December 1998, that all discharges from treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent released into sensitive areas or their catchment areas fulfil the relevant requirements of Annex I to Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not ensuring, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, that discharges from the treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent listed in Annexes 2 and 3 to its defence, as amended by its rejoinder, which enter directly into sensitive areas or their catchment areas fulfil the relevant requirements of Annex I to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Scott SA, Département du Loiret, French Republic

(Case C-290/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Preferential price for the purchase of developed land - Inquiry as to market value - Formal investigation procedure - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination - Scope of the Commission’s power freely to assess value - Costs method - Scope of review by the Courts)

(2010/C 288/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Flett, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Scott SA (represented by: J. Lever QC, R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors, and by P. Gardner and G. Peretz, Barristers), Département du Loiret (represented by: A. Carnelutti, avocat), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Seam and F. Million, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance delivered on 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00 Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities by which the Court annulled Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberley-Clark (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1) in so far as it concerns aid granted in the form of a preferential land price referred to in Article 1 of the decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00 Scott v Commission.

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union.

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
1.

Declares that, by making the authorities responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data by non-public bodies and undertakings governed by public law which compete on the market (öffentlich-rechtliche Wettbewerbsunternehmen) in the different Länder subject to State scrutiny, and by thus incorrectly transposing the requirement that those authorities perform their functions ‘with complete independence’, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/2003 which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive;