ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin

(Case C-462/08) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which that child has completed a vocational training course - Start of the vocational training course after the parents have permanently left that Member State)

2010/C 63/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ümit Bekleyen

Defendant: Land Berlin

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Turkish national born in the host Member State who, having returned with her parents to her country of origin, returns on her own, more than ten years later, to the host Member State in which her parents used to be regularly employed for more than three years, in order to start a vocational training course — Right of access to the labour market and corresponding right of residence in the host Member State for that Turkish national following the completion of a vocational training course

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a Turkish worker has previously been legally employed in the host Member State for more than three years, the child of such a worker may rely in that Member State, after completing her vocational training course there, on the right of access to the employment market and the corresponding right of residence, even though, after travelling back with her parents to their State of origin, she returned on her own to that Member State in order to start that training course there.

(1) OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy)) — Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-169/08) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - State aid - Article 87 EC - Regional legislation establishing a tax on stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft used for the private transport of persons, or by recreational craft, to be imposed only on operators whose tax domicile is outside the territory of that region)

2010/C 24/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Costituzionale (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 87 EC — Regional legislation under which a tax is imposed in respect of stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft only on undertakings, operating aircraft for the transport of persons or goods by way of an activity ancillary to their main business, whose tax domicile is outside Sardinia — State aid, in the form of an exclusion from the obligation to pay the tax, to undertakings carrying on the same activities whose tax domicile is in Sardinia

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation, adopted by a regional authority, such as that provided for under Article 4 of Law No 4 of the Region of Sardinia of 11 May 2006 (Miscellaneous provisions on revenue, reclassification of costs, social policy and development) as amended by Article 3(3) of Law No 2 of the Region of Sardinia of 29 May 2007 (Provisions for the preparation of the annual and long-term budget of the Region — 2007 Finance Law), which establishes a regional tax on stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft used for the private transport of persons, or by recreational craft, to be imposed only on natural and legal persons whose tax domicile is outside the territory of the region.

2. Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that tax legislation, adopted by a regional authority, which establishes a tax on stopovers, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to be imposed only on natural and legal persons whose tax domicile is outside the territory of the region, constitutes a State aid measure in favour of undertakings established in that territory.

(1) OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Fokus Invest AG v Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

(Case C-541/08) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons - Article 25 of Annex I to the Agreement - Articles 63 TFEU and 64(1) TFEU - Free movement of capital - Company established under the law of a Member State, the shares of which are held by a company established under Swiss law - Purchase by the company of immovable property situated in that Member State)

2010/C 80/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fokus Invest AG

Defendant: Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 57(1) of the EC Treaty and of Article 25 of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002, L 114, p. 6) — Applicability to legal persons of the principle of equal treatment — National legislation establishing a system of prior authorisation in the case of acquisition of immovable property by a foreign national — Acquisition of immovable property by a domestic company all the shares in which are held by Swiss Companies

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 25 of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of equal treatment with nationals in relation to the acquisition of immovable property applies only in relation to natural persons.

2. Article 64(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Law of the province of Vienna on the purchase of immovable property by foreign nationals (Wiener Ausländergrunderwerbsgesetz) of 3 March 1998, which require foreign nationals, within the meaning of that law, when acquiring immovable property situated in the province of Vienna, to obtain authorisation in respect of that acquisition or else to produce a confirmation that the conditions laid down in that law for exemption from that requirement are satisfied, constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital which is permitted with regard to the Swiss Confederation as a third country.

(1) OJ C 55, 07.03.2009.
1.

The phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting rules in respect of family reunification which result in such reunification being refused to a sponsor who has proved that he has stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, but who, given the level of his resources, will nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance in order to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, tax refunds granted by local authorities on the basis of his income, or income-support measures in the context of local-authority minimum-income policies (‘minimabeleid’)
1.

Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that: — refugee status ceases to exist when, having regard to a change of circumstances of a significant and non-temporary nature in the third country concerned, the circumstances which justified the person’s fear of persecution for one of the reasons referred to in Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83, on the basis of which refugee status was granted, no longer exist and that person has no other reason to fear being ‘persecuted’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83; — for the purposes of assessing a change of circumstances, the competent authorities of the Member State must verify, having regard to the refugee’s individual situation, that the actor or actors of protection referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 have taken reasonable steps to prevent the persecution, that they therefore operate, inter alia, an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution and that the national concerned will have access to such protection if he ceases to have refugee status; — the actors of protection referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/83 may comprise international organisations controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State, including by means of the presence of a multinational force in that territory.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert

(Case C-510/08) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Gift tax - Land on which a building has been constructed - Allowance to be set against the taxable value - Different treatment of residents and non-residents)

(2010/C 161/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vera Mattner

Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and of Article 56 EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC — National legislation on the taxation of gifts of land fixing the tax-free part of the value of the land at EUR 1 100 if the donor and the acquirer are resident in another Member State, whereas the tax-free part is EUR 205 000 if either the donor or the acquirer is resident in national territory.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, for the calculation of gift tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of a gift of immovable property in that State is smaller where the donor and the donee were resident in another Member State on the date of the gift than the allowance which would have applied if at least one of them had been resident in the former Member State on that date.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

(Case C-325/08) (1)

(Article 39 EC - Freedom of movement for workers - Restriction - Professional football players - Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training - Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation - Justification - Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)

2010/C 134/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olympique Lyonnais SASP

Defendant: Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — National provision obliging a football player to pay compensation to the club which trained him when, at the end of his training period, he signs a professional contract with a club of another Member State — Barrier to the freedom of movement for workers — Possible justification of such a restriction in the need to encourage the recruitment and training of young professional players

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFUE does not preclude a scheme which, in order to attain the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, guarantees compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of his training period, a young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, provided that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.

A scheme such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which a ‘joueur espoir’ who signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State at the end of his training period is liable to pay damages calculated in a way which is unrelated to the actual costs of the training, is not necessary to ensure the attainment of that objective.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 June 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

(Case C-58/08) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 - Roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Principles of proportionality and subsidiarity)

2010/C 209/04

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd

Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Interested parties: Office of Communications, Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, GSM Association

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 32) — Choice of legal basis — Validity of Articles 4, 2(a) and 6(3) of the regulation, imposing a maximum charge for roaming calls, in light of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany)) — Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts v Freerk Heidinga

(Case C-434/08) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Transfer of payment entitlements - Definitive transfer)

2010/C 179/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts

Defendant: Freerk Heidinga

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Interpretation of Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2007 L 270, p. 1) — Contractual clause, inserted into an agreement intended outwardly to effect a complete and definitive transfer of payment entitlements, according to which the transferee, as the formal owner of payment entitlements, is to activate those payment entitlements through cultivation of the corresponding land, but is to pass on to the seller a part of the payments received

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual arrangement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the object of which is to effect a definitive transfer of payment entitlements whereby the transferee, in his capacity as the person entitled to them, is to activate the payment entitlements and to pass on to the transferor, without any limit in time, the full amount, or a part thereof, of the payments received on that basis, provided that the purpose of such an arrangement is not to permit the transferor to retain a part of the payment entitlements which he has formally transferred, but to determine, by reference to the value of that part of the payment entitlements, the agreed price for the transfer of all the payment entitlements.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
3.

Article 7 of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor is not entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising — on the basis of a sign identical with, or similar to, that trade mark, which that advertiser chose as a keyword for an internet referencing service without the consent of that proprietor — the resale of goods manufactured and placed on the market in the European Economic Area by that proprietor or with his consent, unless there is a legitimate reason, within the meaning of Article 7(2), which justifies him opposing that advertising, such as use of that sign which gives the impression that the reseller and the trade mark proprietor are economically linked or use which is seriously detrimental to the reputation of the mark. The national court, which must assess whether or not there is such a legitimate reason in the case before it: — cannot find that the ad gives the impression that the reseller and the trade mark proprietor are economically linked, or that the ad is seriously detrimental to the reputation of that mark, merely on the basis that an advertiser uses another person’s trade mark with additional wording indicating that the goods in question are being resold, such as ‘used’ or ‘second-hand’; — is obliged to find that there is such a legitimate reason where the reseller, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark which it uses in the context of advertising for its resale activities, has removed reference to that trade mark from the goods, manufactured and placed on the market by that proprietor, and replaced it with a label bearing the reseller’s name, thereby concealing the trade mark; and — is obliged to find that a specialist reseller of second-hand goods under another person’s trade mark cannot be prohibited from using that mark to advertise to the public its resale activities which include, in addition to the sale of second-hand goods under that mark, the sale of other second-hand goods, unless the sale of those other goods, in the light of their volume, their presentation or their poor quality, risks seriously damaging the image which the proprietor has succeeded in creating for its mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 June 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-211/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Hospital care needed during a temporary stay in another Member State - Lack of right to assistance from the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)

2010/C 221/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Bering Liisberg and R. Holdgaard, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, Agent and M. Hoskins, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC and Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Non-reimbursement of hospital costs incurred abroad — Exceptional circumstances

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
1.

Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) does not in principle preclude, by itself, the national legislature from acting as national regulatory authority within the meaning of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) provided that, in the exercise of that function, it meets the requirements of competence, independence, impartiality and transparency laid down by those directives and that its decisions in the exercise of that function can be made the object of an effective appeal to a body independent of the parties involved, which it is for the Grondwettelijk Hof to determine.