Case C-372/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board (Jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Point 2 of Article 22 — Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat — Medical practitioners' mutual defence organisation)
Date: 2008-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, civil law, civil proceedings, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, physician, trade union

C 301/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Re:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of
Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of
databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20) — Adoption of data from a
protected database and their incorporation in a different data-
base on the basis of individual assessments following a close
examination of those data, without any copying being carried
out — Whether such a data adoption and incorporation opera-
tion constitutes ‘extraction’ within the meaning of Directive
96/9/EC

Operative part of the judgment

The transfer of material from a protected database to another database
following an on-screen consultation of the first database and an indivi-
dual assessment of the material contained in that first database is
capable of constituting an ‘extraction’, within the meaning of Article 7
of Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, to the extent
that — which it is for the referring court to ascertain — that opera-
tion amounts to the transfer of a substantial part, evaluated qualita-
tively or quantitatively, of the contents of the protected database, or to
transfers of insubstantial parts which, by their repeated or systematic
nature, would have resulted in the reconstruction of a substantial part
of those contents.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Italian Republic

(Case C-368/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/59/EC — Port reception facilities for ship-generated
waste and cargo residues — Failure to develop and implement
waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have
the measures
adopted, within the prescribed time-limit, all
necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000
on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo
residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to prepare and adopt waste reception and
handling plans for every Italian port, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive
2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated
waste and cargo residues;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme
Court — Ireland) — Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health
Board, Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board

(Case C-372/07) (1)

(Jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Point 2 of
Article 22 — Disputes as to the validity of decisions of
organs of companies — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
the State where the company has its seat — Medical practi-
tioners' mutual defence organisation)

(2008/C 301/19)

Language of the case: English

(2008/C 301/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nicole Hassett, Cheryl Doherty

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Simonsson and E. Montaguti, Agents)

Defendants: South Eastern Health Board, North Western Health
Board

Defendant:
Agent, G. Fiengo and F. Arena, lawyers)

Italian Republic (represented by:

I.M. Braguglia,

In the presence of: Raymond Howard, Medical Defence Union Ltd,
MDU Services Ltd, Brian Davidson

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/11

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Inter-
pretation of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Medical trade union consti-
tuted in the form of a company under the law of a Member
State, which provides assistance and indemnity to its members
practising in the Member State and in another Member State —
Provision of the assistance/indemnity dependent on a decision
taken by the board of directors of that company under an abso-
lute discretionary power — Challenge to a decision refusing
assistance or indemnity to a doctor practising in the other
Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State
in which the company has its seat on the basis of Article 22(2)
of the regulation

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforce-
ment of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted
as meaning that proceedings, such as those at issue before the referring
court, in the context of which one of the parties alleges that a decision
adopted by an organ of a company has infringed rights that it claims
that company's Articles of Association, do not concern the
under
validity of
the organs of a company within the
meaning of that provision.

the decisions of

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Bíróság, Republic of Hungary) — Criminal proceedings
brought by Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós

(Case C-404/07) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Frame-
work Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in crim-
inal proceedings — Private prosecutor in substitution for the
public prosecutor — Testimony of the victim as a witness)

Parties in the criminal proceedings

Győrgy Katz against István Roland Sós

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Inter-
pretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision of
15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceed-
ings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — National legislation precluding the
possibility of the victim giving evidence in criminal proceedings
instituted by the victim as a substitute private prosecutor

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 3 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of
15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings
are to be interpreted as not obliging a national court to permit the
victim to be heard as a witness in criminal proceedings instituted by a
substitute private prosecution such as that in issue in the main proceed-
ings. However, in the absence of such a possibility, it must be possible
for the victim to be permitted to give testimony which can be taken
into account as evidence.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

the Court

Judgment of
(Fifth Chamber) of 2 October
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X B.V. v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-411/07) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature —
Tariff classification — Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 —
Optocouplers)

(2008/C 301/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2008/C 301/20)

Referring court

Language of the case: Hungarian

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën