ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an undertaking publishing public directories must pass personal data in its possession relating to subscribers of other telephone service providers to a third-party undertaking whose activity consists in publishing a printed or electronic public directory or making such directories obtainable through directory enquiry services, and under which the passing on of those data is not conditional on renewed consent from the subscribers, provided, however, that those subscribers have been informed, before the first inclusion of their data in a public directory, of the purpose of that directory and of the fact that those data could be communicated to another telephone service provider and that it is guaranteed that those data will not, once passed on, be used for purposes other than those for which they were collected with a view to their first publication.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limits, all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/919/EC of 14 December 2004 [on direct] tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany)) — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt

(Case C-360/09) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Documents and information provided under a national leniency programme - Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the effectiveness and proper functioning of cooperation between the authorities forming the European Competition Network)

2011/C 232/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfleiderer AG

Defendant: Bundeskartellamt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Bonn — Interpretation of provisions of Community law on cartels, in particular Articles 11 and 12 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), and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC — Documents and information supplied to the Member States’ competition authorities by applicants for leniency pursuant to a national leniency programme — Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the efficiency and proper functioning of the cooperation between the authorities constituting the European competition network

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union law on cartels, and in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a person who has been adversely affected by an infringement of European Union competition law and is seeking to obtain damages from being granted access to documents relating to a leniency procedure involving the perpetrator of that infringement. It is, however, for the courts and tribunals of the Member States, on the basis of their national law, to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by European Union law.

(1) OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-538/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(3) - Special areas of conservation - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site - Exemption from assessment of plans or projects which are subject to a declaratory scheme - Incorrect transposition)

2011/C 211/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of the provisions of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Obligatory environmental impact assessment where a project or a plan has an effect on a ‘Natura 2000’ site

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for certain activities, subject to a declaratory scheme, where those activities are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
6.

Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as applying to the operator of an online marketplace where that operator has not played an active role allowing it to have knowledge or control of the data stored. The operator plays such a role when it provides assistance which entails, in particular, optimising the presentation of the offers for sale in question or promoting them. Where the operator of the online marketplace has not played an active role within the meaning of the preceding paragraph and the service provided falls, as a consequence, within the scope of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31, the operator none the less cannot, in a case which may result in an order to pay damages, rely on the exemption from liability provided for in that provision if it was aware of facts or circumstances on the basis of which a diligent economic operator should have realised that the offers for sale in question were unlawful and, in the event of it being so aware, failed to act expeditiously in accordance with Article 14(1)(b) of Directive 2000/31.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-284/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Taxation of dividends - Dividends distributed to companies established in national territory and to companies established in another Member State or a State of the European Economic Area - Different treatment)

2011/C 362/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents, and Professor A. Kube)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — National legislation fully exempting from withholding tax the dividends paid by subsidiaries to parent companies established in national territory, whereas, with regard to parent companies established in another Member State or State of the European Economic Area, that legislation makes that total exemption subject to the condition that the minimum threshold for the parent company’s shareholdings in the share capital of the subsidiary set out in Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) is reached

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by taxing dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States, where the threshold for a parent company’s holding in the capital of its subsidiary laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, is not reached, more heavily in economic terms than dividends distributed to companies established in its territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC;

2. Declares that, by taxing dividends distributed to companies established in Iceland and Norway more heavily in economic terms than dividends distributed to companies established in its territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

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

(1) OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Kingdom of Belgium v Deutsche Post AG, DHL International, European Commission

(Case C-148/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Commission decision not to raise objections - Concept of ‘doubts’ - Services of general economic interest)

2011/C 331/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and T. Materne, Agents, and J. Meyers, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: T. Lübbig and J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte), DHL International (represented by: T. Lübbig and J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (B. Martenczuk and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2009 in Case T-388/03 Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission, by which the Court annulled Commission Decision C(2003) 2508 final of 23 July 2003 not to raise objections, following the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to several measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in favour of La Poste SA — Compensation of net costs of services of general economic interest — Certain circumstances wrongly classified as evidence of serious difficulties necessitating the initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Inadmissible pleas taken into consideration — Breach of the principle of legal certainty

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
1.

Declares that, by tolerating a situation in which the broadcasting of certain types of advertising, such as advertorials, telepromotion spots, sponsorship credits and micro-ads, on Spanish television channels has a duration which exceeds the maximum limit of 20 % of the transmission time within a clock hour, as laid down in Article 18(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 June 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2012 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-335/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 on measures in respect of trade in agricultural products - Action for annulment - Period within which action must be brought - Point from which period starts to run - Lateness - Inadmissibility - Amendment of a provision of that regulation - Recommencement of period within which action must be brought - Partial admissibility - Grounds of appeal - Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection - Infringement of the principles of free movement of goods and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Infringement of the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations - Infringement of the hierarchy of norms - Infringement of Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession - Erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 - Infringement of duty to state reasons)

2012/C 258/02

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by: M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, A. Szmytkowska, and T. van Rijn, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered on 10 June 2009 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-257/04 Poland v Commission, by which it dismissed the action seeking partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 230/2004 of 10 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 39, p. 13) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 735/2004 of 20 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 114, p. 13) — Misinterpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, and of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952 to 1958, p. 59) — Breach of Article 253 EC and of Article 41 of the Act of Accession, infringement of the right to effective redress, and infringement of the principles of solidarity, proportionality, non-discrimination, good faith and legitimate expectations — Procedural irregularities resulting from the refusal of the Court of First Instance to examine the pleas in law alleging infringement of the principles of solidarity and good faith

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Since it does not lay down a limitation rule for bringing proceedings applicable to the clearing to an appropriate account of securities provided in tendering procedures in the butter, concentrated butter and cream market, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs does not constitute sectoral rules providing for a ‘shorter period’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. The four year limitation period established in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 therefore applies to the clearing to an appropriate account of such securities, subject, however, to the possibility retained by the Member States, under Article 3(3) of the regulation, of providing for longer limitation periods.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary as far as concerns permits for industrial installations, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Strong Segurança SA v Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança

(Case C-95/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47(2) - Direct effect - Whether applicable to the services referred to in Annex II B to that directive)

2011/C 139/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Strong Segurança SA

Respondents: Município de Sintra, Securitas-Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Articles 21, 23, 35(4) and 47(2) of, and of Annex II B to, 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) — Economic and financial capacity of the tenderers — Whether an economic operator can rely on the capacities of other entities — Direct effect of a directive implemented late

Operative part of the judgment

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 does not create the obligation, for Member States, to apply Article 47(2) of that directive also to contracts which have as their object services referred to in Annex II B thereto. However, that directive does not preclude Member States and, possibly, contracting authorities from providing for such application in, respectively, their legislation and the documents relating to the contract.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-479/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/30/EC - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)

2011/C 194/10

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) — PM10 particles exceeding limit values in ambient air in zones SW 2 and SW 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by exceeding the limit values for concentrations of PMlO in ambient air from 2005 to 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
1.

Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by making the temporary work agencies providing their services in the territory of the Brussels Capital Region subject to the following requirements: — that they have as their sole business activity that of the provision of workers, and — that they have a particular legal form, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;