Case C-391/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Export refunds on agricultural products — Article 16 — Differentiated refund — Proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed — Production of a copy or photocopy of the transport documents — Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 — Granting of export refunds on cereals — Article 13 — Derogation from Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)
Date: 2008-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs formalities, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, transport document

C 19/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2009

is

thermally treated, on condition that

2) The definition of ‘incineration plant’ in Article 3(4) of Directive
2000/76 relates to any technical unit and equipment in which
waste
substances
resulting from the use of the thermal treatment process are subse-
quently incinerated and that, in that connection, the presence of an
incineration line is not a necessary condition for the purposes of
such classification;

the

3) In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings:

— a gas plant whose objective is to obtain products in gaseous
in this case purified gas, by thermally treating waste
form,
must be classified as a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the
meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/76;

— a power plant which uses as an additional fuel, in substitution
for fossil fuels used for the most part in its production activities,
a purified gas obtained by the co-incineration of waste in a gas
plant does not fall within the scope of that directive.

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat — Interpreta-
tion of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation reser-
ving a tax advantage in respect of the acquisition of unused
tangible assets
to traders using
(Investitionszuwachsprämie)
those assets in a domestic place of business

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC precludes Member State legislation, such as that at issue
in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings which acquire
tangible assets are refused the benefit of an investment premium solely
because the assets in respect of which that premium is claimed, which
are hired out for remuneration, are used primarily in other Member
States.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December
2008 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien — Austria)
— Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v
Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

for

(Case C-330/07) (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment —
Tax legislation — Investment premium — National legislation
conferring a tax advantage only on assets used in a domestic
place of business — Exclusion of assets hired out for remu-
neration primarily used in other Member States — Leasing of
vehicles — Prevention of abuse)

(2009/C 19/09)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December
a preliminary ruling from the
2008 (reference for
Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Glencore Grain
Rotterdam BV v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-391/07) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Export refunds on agri-
cultural products — Article 16 — Differentiated refund —
Proof that customs formalities for importation have been
completed — Production of a copy or photocopy of the trans-
port documents — Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 — Granting
of export refunds on cereals — Article 13 — Derogation from
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)

(2009/C 19/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH

Applicant: Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV

Defendant: Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/7

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of
the second paragraph of Article 13 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995
laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds
on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of distur-
bance on the market for cereals (OJ 1995 L 147, p. 7) —
Simplified procedure: obligation to produce transport docu-
ments

Operative part of the judgment

for

Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June
1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on
cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market
cereals, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1259/97 of 1 July 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that
the fact that the operator provides proof that a quantity of at least
1 500 tonnes of cereal product has left the customs territory of the
European Community on board a vessel suitable for sea transport does
not release him from the obligation laid down in Article 16(3) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of
export refunds on agricultural products to produce a copy or a photo-
copy of the transport documents.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
oikeus — Finland) — Mirja Juuri v Fazer Amica Oy

(Case C-396/07) (1)

(Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Safeguarding of
employees' rights — Transfer of undertakings — Article 4(2)
— Substantial change in working conditions involved by a
transfer — Collective agreement — Termination of
the
contract of employment by the employee — Termination for
which the employer is regarded as responsible — Conse-
quences — Financial compensation for which the employer is
liable)

(2009/C 19/11)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Applicant: Mirja Juuri

Defendant: Fazer Amica Oy

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of
Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March
2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of
transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or
businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Responsibility of
the
employer
terminated his
to an employee who has himself
contract of employment after his working conditions have
become substantially worse following the transfer of an under-
taking which has resulted in a different collective agreement
becoming applicable

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertak-
ings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be inter-
preted as meaning that, in cases where the termination of a contract of
employment or an employment relationship is brought about because
the conditions for the applicability of that provision have been met,
independently of any failure on the part of the transferee employer to
fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Member States are not
required to guarantee the employee a right to financial compensation,
for which the transferee employer is liable, in accordance with the same
conditions as the right upon which an employee can rely where the
contract of employment or the employment relationship is unlawfully
terminated by his employer. However, the national court is required, in
a case within its jurisdiction, to ensure that, at the very least, the trans-
feree employer in such a case bears the consequences that the applicable
national law attaches to termination by an employer of the contract of
employment or the employment relationship, such as the payment of
the salary and other benefits relating, under that law, to the notice
period with which an employer must comply.

It is for the referring court to assess the situation at issue in the case
before it in the light of the interpretation of Article 3(3) of Directive
2001/23 as meaning that the continued observance of the terms and
conditions agreed in a collective agreement which expires on the date of
the transfer of the undertaking is not guaranteed after that date.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.