ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-224/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 82/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin, V. Peere and H. Stølvbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/17

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Hauptzollamt Bremen v J.E. Tyson Parketthandel GmbH hanse j.

(Case C-134/08) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 - Additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America - Temporal scope - Article 4(2) - Products exported after the entry into force of that regulation for which it can be demonstrated that they were already on their way to the Community when those duties were first applied - Whether subject to duty)

2009/C 141/28

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

Defendant: J.E. Tyson Parketthandel GmbH hanse j.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 of 8 December 2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (OJ 2003 L 328, p. 3) — Application of additional customs duties to products exported from the United States of America to the Community after the entry into force of that regulation for which it can be demonstrated that they were already on their way to the Community, with no possibility of changing their destination, when those duties were first applied

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 of 8 December 2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its wording, namely that products for which it can be demonstrated that they are already on their way to the European Community on the date of entry into force of that regulation, and whose destination cannot be changed, are not to be subject to the additional duty.

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-342/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Article 11(1)(c) - Failure to draw up external emergency plans - Incomplete transposition)

2009/C 113/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments falling within Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that an external emergency plan is drawn up for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH v Saarland

(Case C-27/08) (1)

(Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 1(2)(b) - Concept of ‘medicinal product by function’ - Dosage of the product - Normal conditions of use - Risk to health - Ability to restore, correct or modify physiological functions in human beings)

2009/C 153/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Defendant: Saarland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Definition of medicinal product — Product containing a substance having a therapeutic effect in high doses, while capable of being harmful in lower doses, like the dose recommended by the manufacturer — Boswellia extract

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that a product which includes in its composition a substance which has a physiological effect when used in a particular dosage is not a medicinal product by function where, having regard to its content in active substances and under normal conditions of use, it constitutes a risk to health without, however, being capable of restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
3.

Where a matter is regulated in a harmonised manner at Community level, any national measure relating thereto must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not in that of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. In matters coming under Directive 1999/5 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, Member States must comply in full with the provisions of that directive and may not maintain in force contrary national provisions. In the case where a Member State takes the view that conformity with a harmonised standard does not guarantee compliance with the essential requirements laid down by Directive 1999/5 which that standard is supposed to cover, that Member State is required to follow the procedure set out in Article 5 of that directive. By contrast, a Member State may, in support of a restriction, invoke grounds external to the field harmonised by Directive 1999/5. In such a case, it may invoke only the reasons laid down in Article 30 EC or mandatory requirements relating to the public interest.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/21

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-335/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages - Regulations (EEC) Nos 517/72 and 684/92 - International carriage of passengers by coach and bus - Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability - Limitation period)

2009/C 180/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: D. Schönberger, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and N. Yerrell, agents.)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transport Schiocchet v Commission dismissing as inadmissible, on the ground of limitation, the action brought by the appellant seeking a declaration of non-contractual liability and compensation for harm sustained as a result of various illegal acts committed by the Community institutions — Conditions for bringing an action for damages — Concepts of regular service and special regular service within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for regular and special regular services by coach and bus between Member States (OJ 1972 L 67, p. 19), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/19

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Pannon GSM Zrt v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

(Case C-243/08) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Legal effects of an unfair term - Power of and obligation on the national court to examine of its own motion the unfairness of a term conferring jurisdiction - Criteria for assessment)

2009/C 180/32

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budaörsi Városi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pannon GSM Zrt

Defendant: Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Budaörsi Városi Bíróság — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Clause conferring jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business — Power of the national court to examine of its own motion, and in the context of the examination of its own jurisdiction, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction is unfair — Criteria to be applied in determining whether the clause is unfair

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand.

2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction.

3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/14

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-574/08) (1)

(Internal market - Free movement of capital - Fight against fraud and money laundering)

2009/C 220/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Har Vaessen Douane Service BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-7/08) (1)

(Relief from import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Article 27 - Goods of a negligible individual value dispatched as a grouped consignment - Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community)

2009/C 205/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Har Vaessen Douane Service BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 (OJ 1991 L 105, p. 1) — Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community, each of negligible value but dispatched as a grouped consignment with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the maximum value prescribed by law

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of 7 November 1991, does not preclude grouped consignments of goods, with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold laid down in Article 27, but which are individually of negligible value, from being admitted free of import duties, provided that each parcel of the grouped consignment is addressed individually to a consignee within the European Community. In that respect, the fact that the contractual partner of those consignees is itself established in the European Community is not relevant where the goods are dispatched directly from a third country to those consignees.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — RCI Europe v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-37/08) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Fiscal connection - Supply of services connected with immovable property - Services consisting in facilitating the exchange by owners of rights to occupy holiday homes)

2009/C 267/25

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RCI Europe

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Interpretation of Articles 9(2)(a) and 26 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Determination of the place where supplies are deemed to be provided — Supplies of services consisting in facilitating the exchange by the holders of rights to occupy a property intended for use by holidaymakers who are members of an association established by the taxable person for that purpose, for the rights of other owners.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the place where services are supplied by an association whose business consists in organising the exchange between its members of their timeshare usage rights in holiday accommodation, in return for which that association receives from its members enrolment, annual subscription and exchange fees, is the place where the property in respect of which the member concerned holds timeshare usage rights is situated.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA

(Case C-189/08) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Definition of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’)

2009/C 220/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuid-Chemie BV

Defendant: Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ — Place where the harmful event occurred — Place where the event which gave rise to the harm occurred (‘Handlungsort’) and place where the harm arose (‘Erfolgsort’) — Connecting criteria.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, the words ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ designate the place where the initial damage occurred as a result of the normal use of the product for the purpose for which it was intended.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/16

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

(Case C-76/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409/EEC - Spring hunting - Prohibition - Derogation from the system of protection - Condition that there be no ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Legitimate expectations)

2009/C 267/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, D. Lawunmi and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, D. Mangion, acting as Agents and J. Bouckaert, advocaat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Failure to comply with the criteria laid down by the Directive for the grant of a derogation authorising hunting in spring of quail and turtle doves

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by authorising the opening of a hunting season for quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) during the spring migration period in the years 2004 to 2007, without complying with the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, in respect of 2004 to 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003, and, in respect of 2007, by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.