Case C-304/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right — Concept of extraction of the contents of a database)
Date: 2008-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consultation of information, data protection, database, interpretation of the law

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/9

2. Article 20 must also be interpreted as not precluding national
legislation which lays down that an eligible customer's equipment
may be connected to a transmission system only where the distribu-
tion system operator refuses, on account of established technical or
operating requirements, to connect to its system the equipment of
the eligible customer which is on the territory included in its
licence. It is, however, for national courts to verify that the imple-
mentation and application of
that access system takes place in
accordance with objective and non discriminatory criteria between
the users of the transmission and distribution systems.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High
Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom))
— The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs v Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District
Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council,
West Berkshire District Council

(Case C-288/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(5) — Activities engaged in
by bodies governed by public law — Provision of off-street
car-parking facilities for which a charge is made — Distor-
tions of competition — Meaning of ‘would lead to’ and
‘significant’)

(2008/C 301/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

public law in its capacity as a public authority — Off-street
parking facilities for which a charge is made — Non-application
of VAT leading to distortions of competition — Concept of
‘distortion of competition’ — Criteria for determination

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(5) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that
the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as
non-taxable persons of bodies governed by private law acting as
public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the
activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to
any local market in particular.

of Article 4(5)

2. The expression ‘would lead to’ is, for the purposes of the second
subparagraph
of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC, to be interpreted as encompassing not only actual
competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possi-
bility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and
not purely hypothetical.

3. The word ‘significant’

the second sub-
paragraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC,
to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions
of competition must be more than negligible.

the purposes of

for

is,

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof, Germany) — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

(Case C-304/07) (1)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs

Respondents: Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council,
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire
District Council

Re:

(Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases —
Sui generis right — Concept of ‘extraction’ of the contents of
a database)

(2008/C 301/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of
England and Wales (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of
Article 4(5) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) —
Activities or transactions engaged in by a body governed by

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Directmedia Publishing GmbH

Defendant: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

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