ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-444/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public supply and works contracts - Review procedures for the award of public contracts)

(2008/C 128/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and C. Fernandez Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogados)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — National legislation not in conformity with the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to lay down a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the tenderers and by failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay two thirds of all the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the other third.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France)) — Philippe Derouin v Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf)

(Case C-103/06) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Self employed workers living and working in France - General social contribution - Social debt repayment contribution - Account taken of income received in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double taxation treaty)

(2008/C 128/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philippe Derouin

Defendant: Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France) — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — Account taken for the purpose of calculating the ‘contribution sociale généralisée’ (general social contribution) and the ‘contribution pour le remboursement de la dette sociale’ (social debt repayment contribution) payable by a self-employed worker subject to French social legislation of income earned in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double-taxation convention.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State whose social legislation is alone applicable to a resident self employed worker, from excluding from the tax base for contributions such as the General Social Contribution and the Social Debt Repayment Contribution income earned by the worker in another Member State, by application, in particular, of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Germany) — Energy management proceedings between citiworks AG (Intervening party: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde), on the one hand, and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH and Bundesnetzagentur, on the other

(Case C-439/06) (1)

(Internal market in electricity - Directive 2003/54/EC - Article 20(1) - Open access of third parties to electricity transmission and distribution systems)

(2008/C 171/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Dresden

Applicant in the energy management proceedings

citiworks AG

Interveners in the energy management proceedings in support of the applicant: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde,

Defendants in the energy management proceedings: Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH, Bundesnetzagentur

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Dresden — Interpretation of Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — National legislation which excludes networks wholly situated on the premises of an undertaking (Betriebsnetze) from the principle of free access of third persons to electricity transport and distribution networks

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Law on electricity and gas supply, referred to as ‘the Law on energy management’ (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) of 7 July 2005, which exempts certain operators of energy supply systems from the obligation to provide third parties with open access to those systems on the grounds that they are located on a geographically connected operation zone and that they predominantly serve to supply the energy needs of the undertaking itself and of connected undertakings.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina SpA

(Case C-456/06) (1)

(Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution to the public by sale or otherwise of the original of a work or a copy thereof - Use of reproductions of copyright-protected furniture as items of furniture exhibited in a sales area and in display windows - No transfer of ownership or possession)

(2008/C 142/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG

Defendant: Cassina SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Use, without the consent of the copyright holder, of reproductions of copyright-protected items of furniture as furnishings arranged in a sales area and for decorative display purposes — Whether such use, which does not involve any form of transfer of ownership or possession, does or does not constitute a ‘form of distribution to the public’

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object. As a result, neither granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright nor exhibiting to the public those reproductions without actually granting a right to use them can constitute such a form of distribution.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
1.

Article 25 EC is to be construed as precluding a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to their net operator a price surcharge on the amounts of domestic and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company designated by the legislature, with that company being the joint subsidiary of the four domestic generating undertakings and having previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and imported, and where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to pay non-market-compatible costs for which that company is personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity transmitted. The same applies where the national electricity generating undertakings are required to bear those costs and where, by reason of existing agreements, by the payment of a purchase price for electricity produced in the Member State, by the payment of dividends to the various domestic electricity generating undertakings of which the designated company is the subsidiary or by any other means, the advantage which that price surcharge constitutes could be passed on in its entirety by the designated company to the domestic electricity generating undertakings. Article 90 EC is to be construed as meaning that it precludes such a statutory rule where the revenue from the charge levied on the electricity transmitted is used only in part to pay non-market-compatible costs, that is to say where the amount levied by the designated company only partly offsets the burden borne by the national electricity transmitted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-319/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Posting of workers - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Public policy provisions - Weekly rest days - Obligation to produce documents relating to a posting on demand by the national authorities - Obligation to designate an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg to retain all the documents necessary for monitoring purposes)

(2008/C 209/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant(s): Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Obligation to have an ad hoc agent resident in Luxembourg to keep all the documents necessary for the purposes of controls — Application of national provisions on working and employment conditions both going beyond and falling short of the requirements of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that — by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and the monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy; — by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; — by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December 2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and — by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an ad hoc agent resident there, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.

2) Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-286/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Workers - Recognition of diplomas - Engineer)

(2008/C 313/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 3 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Professional qualification of engineer obtained in Italy not recognised in Spain

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Kingdom of Spain, — by refusing to recognise the professional qualifications of engineer obtained in Italy on the basis of university education and training provided solely in Spain, and — by making admission to internal exams for promotion in the civil service subject in the case of engineers with professional qualifications obtained in another Member State to academic recognition of those qualifications, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, and in particular Article 3 thereof.

2. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-316/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water)

(2008/C 285/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to ensure that the waste water from a number of agglomerations is made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before entering collecting systems (agglomerations of Bray, Howth, Letterkenny, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore, County Waterford)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Les Éditions Albert René Sàrl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Orange A/S

(Case C-16/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8 and 63 - Word mark MOBILIX - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word mark OBELIX - Partial rejection of the opposition - Reformatio in pejus - ‘Counteraction’ theory - Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute - Documents included as an annex to the application as new evidence before the Court of First Instance)

(2009/C 44/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Les Éditions Albert René Sàrl (represented by: J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Orange A/S (represented by: J. Balling, advokat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2005 in Case T-336/03 Editions Albert René v OHIM — Orange (MOBILIX) by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word mark ‘OBELIX’ in respect of certain goods and services classed inter alia in Classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42 against Decision R 559/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2003 rejecting in part the application brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition proceeding brought against the application to register the word mark MOBILIX in respect of certain goods and services classed in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38 and 42

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Les Éditions Albert René Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-38/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of goods for specifically military use)

2010/C 113/02

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, Â. Seiça Neves, J. Gomes and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Molde, acting as Agent), Hellenic Republic (represented by E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, assisted by G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 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) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130. p. 1) — Import free of customs duties of war material and goods for both military and civil use

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by refusing to calculate and pay to the Commission of the European Communities own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, in relation to imports of equipment and goods for specifically military use, and by refusing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the Commission of the European Communities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations, respectively, under Articles 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, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, in so far as the period from 1 January 1998 to 30 May 2000 inclusive is concerned, and under the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, in so far as the period from 31 May 2000 to 31 December 2002 is concerned;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.