ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway

(Case C-319/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Tax relief measures for seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Concept of party concerned - Trade union - Admissibility of the action)

2009/C 205/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: A.P. Bentley QC and A. Worsøe, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and H. van Vliet, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 in Case T-30/03 Specialarbejderforbundet Danmark (SID) v Commission of the European Communities declaring inadmissible an action for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 to regard the tax reduction measures applicable to seafarers on board Danish vessels as State aid compatible with the common market — Concept of party concerned — Trade union

Operative part of the judgment

1. The order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 April 2007 in Case T-30/03 SID v Commission is set aside in part, in so far as it did not address the arguments of 3F relating, first, to the competitive position of 3F in relation to other trade unions in the negotiation of collective agreements applicable to seafarers and, second, to the social aspects of the fiscal measures in relation to seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register of Shipping.

2. The plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities is rejected.

3. The case is remitted to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for it to rule on the claim by 3F for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 not to raise objections to the Danish fiscal measures applicable to seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register.

4. Costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, London –United Kingdom) — HSBC Holdings plc, Vidacos Nominees Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-569/07) (1)

(Indirect taxation - Raising of capital - Levying of a duty of 1,5 % on the transfer or issue of shares into a clearance service)

2009/C 282/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Special Commissioners of Income Tax, London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HSBC Holdings plc, Vidacos Nominees Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Special Commissioners of Income Tax, London — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 5), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), and of Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC — Offer by a company (‘A’) established in a Member State to acquire the shares of a company (‘B’) established in another Member State in exchange for the issue of shares in company A on the stock market of the other Member State — Imposition of a duty of 1.5 % on the transfer or issuing of shares in a clearance service

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the levying of a duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the issue of shares into a clearance service.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-416/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EC - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing - Structural and general infringement of Community rules)

2009/C 267/17

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Charitaki, S. Papaïoannou and E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 5, 8, 9 and 18(2) of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) — Infringement of Articles 5(4), 6(1), 13(3) and (4), 15(1), 25, 26 and 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Infringement of Articles 3, 5(1), 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 21)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to take the measures necessary: — to ensure that the competent authorities carry out obligatory checks of route plans; — to provide for facilities in or in the immediate vicinity of ferry ports to enable animals to rest after unloading; — so as to ensure that the inspections of the means of transport and the animals are actually carried out; — to ensure that the rules on the stunning of animals at the time of slaughter are complied with, and — to ensure that inspections and controls in slaughterhouses are carried out in an appropriate manner, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first indent of Article 5(A)(2)(d)(i) and Article 8 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 of 14 April 2003, point 48.7(b) of Chapter VII of the Annex to that directive, as amended by Regulation No 806/2003, and Articles 3, 5(1)(d), 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay two thirds of the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay one third of the costs.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
1.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court, which imposes restrictions on the issue of licences for the opening of new pharmacies, by providing that: — in each pharmaceutical area, a single pharmacy may be opened, as a general rule, per unit of 2 800 inhabitants; — a supplementary pharmacy may not be opened until that threshold has been exceeded, that pharmacy being established for the fraction above 2 000 inhabitants; and — each pharmacy must be a minimum distance away from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 250 metres. Nevertheless, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic ‘2 800 inhabitants’ and ‘250 metres’ rules prevent, in any geographical area which has special demographic features, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to ensure adequate pharmaceutical services, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

(Case C-127/08) (1)

(Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State - Family members who are nationals of non-member countries - Nationals of non-member countries who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses of Union citizens)

(2008/C 236/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska

Defendant: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Spouse who is a non-EU national — National legislation of the host Member State making the right of residence of family members subject to prior lawful residence in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. 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 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive.

2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

(Case C-67/08) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Inheritance tax - National rules not allowing inheritance tax in respect of capital claims, paid by an heir in one Member State, to be credited against inheritance tax payable in another Member State where the owner of the assets was resident at the time of death - Double taxation - Restriction - None)

(2009/C 82/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarete Block

Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 56(1) and 58(1)(a) and (3) of the EC Treaty — National inheritance tax legislation — Double taxation resulting from the impossibility of crediting tax levied in another Member State against national tax where the inherited assets situated in that other Member State are in the form of a bank account

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — as regards the assessment of inheritance tax payable by an heir who is resident in that Member State in respect of capital claims against a financial institution in another Member State — does not provide for inheritance tax paid in that other Member State to be credited against inheritance tax payable in the first Member State where the person whose estate is being administered was, at the time of death, resident in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 19 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-402/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 113/27

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and V. Kovačič, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: A. Vran, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 56)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz

(Case C-88/08) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Age discrimination - Determining the pay of contractual employees of the State - Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18)

2009/C 180/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Hütter

Defendant: Technische Universität Graz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 6 of 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) — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation which excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account for the purpose of determining the remuneration of contractual public servants

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in order not to treat general education less favourably than vocational education and to promote the integration of young apprentices into the labour market, excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account for the purpose of determining the incremental step at which contractual public servants of a Member State are graded.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — Siebrand BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-150/08) (1)

(Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings 2206 and 2208 - Fermented beverage containing distilled alcohol - Beverage produced from fruit or from a natural product - Addition of substances - Effects - Loss of the taste, smell and appearance of the original beverage)

2009/C 153/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Siebrand BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag –Interpretation of tariff headings 2206 and 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature — Fermented beverage containing distilled alcohol — Addition of water and ingredients resulting in a loss of the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from fruit or from a natural product

Operative part of the judgment

Fermented alcohol-based beverages corresponding originally to heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, to which a certain proportion of distilled alcohol, water, sugar syrup, aromas, colourings and, in some cases, a cream base have been added, resulting in the loss of the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from a particular fruit or natural product, do not come under heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature but rather under heading 2208 thereof.

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/18

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-170/08) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Beef and veal - Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 - Article 3a - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Single payment - Determination of reference amount - Reductions and exclusions)

2009/C 180/30

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Nijemeisland

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article3a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p.1) and of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Fixing of the reference amount — Reductions and exclusions.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2004 of 29 October 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions and exclusions based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal are not to be taken into account in the calculation provided for in Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/19

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Kloosterboer Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam

(Case C-173/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Cooling systems for computers composed of a heat sink and a fan - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)

2009/C 180/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kloosterboer Services BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21) — Classification of cooling systems for computers composed of a ‘heat sink’ and a fan

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, made up of a heat sink and a fan and which are solely intended to be incorporated in a computer must be classified under subheading 8473 30 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to that regulation.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.