ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Humanplasma GmbH v Republic of Austria

(Case C-421/09)

2010/C 24/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Humanplasma GmbH

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Question referred

Does Article 28 (in conjunction with Article 30) EC preclude the application of a national provision under which the importation of erythrocyte concentrates from Germany is permitted only where the blood was donated without any payment having been made (not even coverage of expenses), that being a condition which is also applicable to the obtaining of erythrocyte concentrates within Austria?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/24

Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-511/09 P)

2010/C 37/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06, Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg., Co., Ltd. v Council of the European Union, in so far as it rejects the Appellant's first part of its first plea at first instance;

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 (1) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on LAMs produced by the Appellant in excess of the amount of duty that would be payable if the contested adjustment to the export price had not been made; and

— order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings including the proceedings at first instance

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment fails to give the correct legal effect to the notion of normal value as defined by Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 384/96 (2), as amended, on the protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. As a result, the contested judgment draws the erroneous conclusion that the analogue normal value determined in accordance with that provision necessarily corresponds to the point where the relevant products leave the production line in China, even though the contested judgment itself finds that SG&A for both domestic and export sales are incurred not by the company in China, but by related companies in a market economy country, Hong Kong. This erroneous conclusion leads the contested judgment to infringe Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 384/96, as amended, by upholding the Institutions’ adjustment to the export price consisting in a deduction of the SG&A and profits of the related companies in Hong Kong.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China

OJ L205 p.1

(2) OJ L56, p.1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/21

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-490/09)

2010/C 37/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by maintaining in force, in their current wording, Paragraph 24 of the Social Security Code which precludes the reimbursement of the costs of medical analyses carried out in another Member State by providing for those analyses to be reimbursed only by a paying third party, and Article 12 of the statutes of the Union des Caisses de Maladie (Union of Sickness funds) which subjects the reimbursement of medical analyses carried out in another Member State to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg national conventions, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has to fulfil its obligations under Article [49] EC Treaty;

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Commission claims that by maintaining in force the laws which preclude the reimbursement of medical analyses and medical laboratory tests carried out in other Member States, or which subject such reimbursement to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg legislation, the defendant infringed the principle of the freedom to provide services set out in Article 49 EC.

The applicant observes, by way of example, that the national authorities reimburse the costs of analysis and testing only where they are carried out within a separate laboratory which fully complies with the provisions of Luxembourg law. However, in certain Member States, such analyses are not carried out in a laboratory, but by the doctors themselves.

According to the Commission, the restrictions at issue cannot be justified by an overriding requirement in the general interest and neither do they represent an essential and proportionate measure to achieve the aim of the protection of public health.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 November 2009 — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln

(Case C-450/09)

2010/C 37/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulrich Schröder

Defendant: Finanzamt Hameln

Question referred

The following question is referred, pursuant to Article 234(3) EC, for a preliminary ruling:

Is a situation where a relative with domestically limited tax liability, unlike a person with unlimited tax liability, may not deduct from his total income, as special expenditure, annuities paid in connection with income from letting or leasing, contrary to Articles 56 and 12 EC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/31

Action brought on 18 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-542/09)

2010/C 63/50

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by requiring that migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil a residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’) in order to be eligible under the WSF (1) for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68; (2)

— order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As the Netherlands has still not adopted all the measures necessary to put an end to the residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’), which migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil in order to be eligible under the WSF for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Commission draws the conclusion that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation No 1612/68.

(1) Wet Studiefinanciering 2000 (Law on funding for studies).

(2) Council Regulation of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab

(Case C-547/09)

2010/C 100/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Respondent: Andrea Schwab

Questions referred

1. Should Article 2(2), first indent, and Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, (1) and Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that direct sex discrimination (termination/dismissal of an employed doctor) by a public pension insurance fund may be justified?

2. Should Article 4(1) of Directive 97/80/EEC (3) and Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC — and possibly Article 2(2), second indent, of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, and Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC or Article 2(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (4) — be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the event of actions for the annulment of terminations/dismissals inter alia on the grounds of sex, does not permit the consideration of social factors or interests, but only the assessment of evidence as to whether the sex discrimination was the predominant motive for the termination/dismissal or whether another reason to be substantiated by the employer predominated?

(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; OJ 1976 L, p. 40.

(2) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast); OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(3) Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex; OJ 1998 L 14, p. 6.

(4) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
—

on the basis that those services concern the temporary provision of stands to clients presenting their goods and services at fairs and exhibitions which is normally preceded by the drawing up of a design and visualisation of the stand and, possibly, transportation of parts of the stand and its assembly at the place where the fair or exhibition is organised, and the service supplier’s clients exhibiting their goods or services pay separately to the organiser of the relevant event fees for the very possibility of participating in the fair or exhibition which cover utility, fair infrastructure and media service costs and so forth, each exhibitor is separately responsible for fitting out and constructing his own stand and in that respect uses the services at issue which require interpretation, organisers charge visitors individually fees for entrance to their fair or exhibition which accrue to the organiser of the event and not to the supplier of the service?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/17

Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-36/10)

2010/C 80/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures to correctly transpose the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Commission claims that the defendant did not correctly implement the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82/EC in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels-Capital Region). In order to prevent major accidents and to limit the consequences of such accidents, that provision creates the obligation that the Member States ensure that their land use takes account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by the directive and areas such as residential areas, buildings and areas of public use or leisure areas covered by Article 12 of that directive. However, it is apparent from an examination of the provisions implemented by the authorities of Brussels that those provisions concern only the procedures for granting planning permission or for division into plots, which inevitably takes place after the creation of a land-use policy. Thus, the regional measures are incomplete in so far as they do not cover the procedures for defining and implementing that policy.

(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.

(2) Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).
1.

Is the exemption of pharmaceutical substances from customs duties laid down in Part One, Section II, Part C (i), of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987, in conjunction with the list of pharmaceutical substances contained in Part Three (annexes), Section II, Annex 3, restricted to the pure form of the (chemical) substances referred to?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/24

Action brought on 28 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-48/10)

2010/C 100/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary so that the authorities ensure — by granting authorisations in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, by adequately revising the conditions and, if appropriate, updating them — that installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b), and 15(2) by 30 October 2007 at the latest, unless other specific provisions of Community law are applicable, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under to Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (‘IPPC Directive’).

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC, the period for complying with the obligation to adapt existing installations to the requirements of the IPPC Directive, by granting an integrated environmental authorisation, lapsed on 30 October 2007.

On that date, many existing installations continued operating in Spain without that authorisation. Since the commencement of an action based on that infringement, the process of granting environmental authorisations has been speeded up without, however, bringing an end to that infringement within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion or, according to the information available to the Commission, without bringing an end to it by the present date. According to the information supplied by the national authorities in their reply to the reasoned opinion, 533 existing installations were still operating without the mandatory IPPC authorisation on the date on which the period prescribed in that opinion, for complying with the obligations arising under Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, lapsed.

In those circumstances, it is clear that the Kingdom of Spain has still not fulfilled the obligations arising from that provision.

(1) OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.
1.

In the light of the fact that the aid scheme (Ref. NN 91/A/95) established by the Region of Sicily in Article 10 of Regional Law No 27 of 15 May 1991 laid down a mechanism of assistance for a minimum of two, and a maximum of five, years (two years for workers recruited on training and work experience contracts plus a maximum of three years in cases where those contracts are converted into open-ended contracts), was it the intention of the European Commission, in Decision No 95/C 343/11 of 14 November 1995 authorising the scheme’s implementation (‘the authorising decision’): — to permit such a cumulative increase to the duration and financial amount of the assistance (two years + three years) or, alternatively, — to authorise, on a mutually exclusive basis, either the grant of assistance for workers recruited on training and work experience contracts (for the two years’ duration of such contracts) or the grant of assistance for those workers recruited previously on training and work experience contracts which were subsequently converted into open-ended contracts (for the three years from that conversion)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2010 — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH

(Case C-86/10)

2010/C 113/38

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Siegburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hüseyin Balaban

Defendant: Zelter GmbH

Question referred

Should Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the selection of workers to be dismissed on operational grounds, allows age groups to be formed in order to ensure a balanced age structure and to ensure that the selection between comparable workers will be made in such a way that the ratio of the number of workers to be selected from the respective age groups to the total number of comparable workers to be dismissed corresponds to the ratio of the number of workers employed in the respective age groups to the number of all comparable workers of the undertaking?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
3.

Is the organiser’s obligation under Article 4(1)(b)(iv) of Directive 90/314/EEC to provide the consumer before the start of the tour with information on the optional conclusion of an insurance policy to cover the costs of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of an accident to be interpreted as meaning that it includes the organiser’s obligation to conclude an individual insurance policy with the consumer covering the costs of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of an accident?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/32

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Lidl & Companhia v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-106/10)

2010/C 113/49

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lidl & Companhia

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Intervening Party: Ministério Público

Questions referred

Is point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78, read in conjunction with point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79, of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 to be interpreted as prohibiting, in the case of intra-Community purchases, the inclusion in the taxable amount for VAT of the vehicle tax introduced by Law No 22-A/2007 of 29 June 2007?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/121/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2006/121/EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/27

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium) lodged on 15 March 2010 — 1. Olivier Paul Louis Halley, 2. Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie Halley and 3. Marie Joëlle Armel Halley v Belgische Staat

(Case C-132/10)

2010/C 134/41

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants : Olivier Paul Louis HALLEY Julie Jacqueline Marthe Marie HALLEY Marie Joëlle Armel HALLEY Defendant : Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is point 2 of the first paragraph of Article 137 of the Inheritance Tax Code (Wetboek Successierechten), in conjunction with Article 111 of the Inheritance Tax Code, compatible with Articles 26, 49, 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, given that the limitation period in respect of inheritance tax payable on registered shares is two years where the company’s centre of effective management is in Belgium, but 10 years where the company’s centre of effective management is not in Belgium?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia v Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias

(Case C-129/10)

2010/C 134/39

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia

Defendant: Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias (Minister for Mercantile Marine)

Question referred

Do the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 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), interpreted in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services, allow national schemes to be adopted, whereby shipowners cannot provide cabotage services without a prior administrative authorisation issued, in the context of an authorisation system aimed inter alia at ensuring verification of whether, in light of the prevailing conditions in a specific port, the schedules declared by the shipowner can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port and verification of the ability of the scheduled vessel to enter a specific port unhindered at the time declared by the shipowner as the preferred time for a specific service without, however, determination in advance in a legal rule of the criteria on the basis of which the authorities rule on such questions, especially in cases where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time?