do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-273/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 16 July 2009 — Premis Medical BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Rotterdam Laan op Zuid
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, electric cable, footwear industry, information processing, interpretation of the law, manufactured goods








C_2009267EN.01002701.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 16 July 2009 — Premis Medical BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Rotterdam Laan op Zuid
(Case C-273/09)
2009/C 267/49
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Premis Medical BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Rotterdam Laan op Zuid

Questions referred







1.


Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 (1) of 15 April 2004, published on 20 April 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 113, page 5, with a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 173, page 9, valid in the sense that the annex contained in the corrigendum is the valid annex? If so:










2.


Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004, published on 20 April 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 113, page 5, with a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 173, page 9, invalid on the ground that the Commission has restricted the scope of heading 9021 in that regulation? If the regulation is valid:










3.


Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004, published on 20 April 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 113, page 5, with a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 173, page 9, invalid on the ground that the Commission has incorrectly classified the rollator in the CN?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 113, p. 5).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5525 — Tui Travel/Oscrivia/JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, provision of services, travel








C_2009164EN.01000401.xml










16.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5525 — Tui Travel/Oscrivia/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 164/02
On 7 July 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5525. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-128/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Jacques Damseaux v État belge (Free movement of capital — Taxation of investment income — Double taxation convention — Obligation of the Member States under Article 293 EC)
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, France, bilateral agreement, double taxation, interpretation of the law, tax on income








C_2009267EN.01001801.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/18





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Jacques Damseaux v État belge
(Case C-128/08) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Taxation of investment income - Double taxation convention - Obligation of the Member States under Article 293 EC)
2009/C 267/30
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

Defendant: État belge

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 56, 58 and 293 EC — Heavier taxation of investment income from abroad than of investment income paid by a company established in the Member State of residence — Obstacle to free movement of capital — Scope of conventions preventing double taxation — Obligation of Member States under Article 293 EC

Operative part of the judgment

In so far as Community law, in its current state and in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC does not preclude a bilateral tax convention, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a shareholder residing in another Member State are liable to be taxed in both Member States, and which does not provide that the Member State in which the shareholder resides is unconditionally obliged to prevent the resulting juridical double taxation.


(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
Case C-554/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2, 9 and 13 — Economic activity in which the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law engage — Exemption)
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, public authorities, tax authorities, tax system








C_2009220EN.01000602.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
(Case C-554/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 9 and 13 - Economic activity in which the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law engage - Exemption)
2009/C 220/09
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and E. Fitzsimons SC and N. Travers BL)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemption of all economic activities carried on by the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to lay down, in its national legislation, a general requirement that economic activities in which bodies governed by public law engage otherwise than in their capacity as a public authority are to be subject to value added tax;
by failing to lay down, in its national legislation, either a general requirement that bodies governed by public law acting in their capacity as a public authority are to be subject to value added tax where their treatment as non-taxable persons gives rise to significant distortions of competition or any criterion providing a framework for the exercise, in that connection, of the Minister for Finance’s discretion, and
by failing to lay down, in its national legislation, a general requirement that bodies governed by public law engaged in activities listed in Annex I to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax are to be subject to such tax, provided that those activities are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible,
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of the Directive.










2.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
Case C-278/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance, Paris (France) lodged on 16 July 2009 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v Société MGN Limited
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, access to information, copyright, electronic publishing, fundamental rights, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, visual arts








C_2009220EN.01002902.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/29





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance, Paris (France) lodged on 16 July 2009 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v Société MGN Limited
(Case C-278/09)
2009/C 220/56
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande Instance, Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez
Defendants: Société MGN Limited

Question referred

Must Article 2 and 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 (1) be interpreted to mean that a court or tribunal of a Member State has jurisdiction to hear an action brought in respect on an infringement of personal rights allegedly committed by the placing on-line of information and/or photographs on an Internet site published in another Member State by a company domiciled in that second State — or in a third Member State, but in any event in a State other than the first Member State —:






—


On the sole condition that that Internet site can be accessed from the first Member State,










—


On the sole condition that there is between the harmful act and the territory of the first Member State a link which is sufficient, substantial or significant and, in that case, whether that link can be created by:






—


the number of hits on the page at issue made from the first Member State, as an absolute figure or as a proportion of all hits on that page,










—


the residence, or nationality, of the person who complains of the infringement of his personal rights or more generally of the persons concerned,










—


the language in which the information at issue is broadcast or any other factor which may demonstrate the site publisher’s intention to address specifically the public of the first Member State,










—


the place where the events described occurred and/or where the photographic images put on-line were taken,










—


other criteria?










(1)  OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5506 — Sabena Technics/TNT Airways/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, air transport, economic concentration, exchange of information, freight rate, maintenance, merger control








C_2009164EN.01002101.xml










16.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/21





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5506 — Sabena Technics/TNT Airways/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 164/05






1.


On 3 July 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Sabena Technics SA (‘Sabena Technics’, France) belonging to the TAT group, and TNT Airways SA (‘TNT Airways’, Belgium) belonging to the TNT group acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of X-Air Services SA (‘X-Air Services’, Belgium), a newly created company constituting a joint venture by the way of purchase of shares and transfer of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Sabena Technics: repair and maintenance of aircraft,










—


for TNT Airways: freight air transport,










—


for X-Air Services: repair and maintenance of aircraft.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 2 2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5506 — Sabena Technics/TNT Airways/JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Case C-574/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Internal market — Free movement of capital — Fight against fraud and money laundering)
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, domestic market, fraud, free movement of capital, money laundering








C_2009220EN.01001402.xml










12.9.2009   


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.
Case C-189/08: 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 (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 )
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, consumer protection, damage, defective product, interpretation of the law








C_2009220EN.01001102.xml










12.9.2009   


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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2009164EN.01000501.xml










16.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 July 2009
2009/C 164/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4089




JPY


Japanese yen


131,57




DKK


Danish krone


7,4453




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85760




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9746




CHF


Swiss franc


1,5179




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0190




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,900




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


273,25




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7004




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2900




RON


Romanian leu


4,2165




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1625




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7551




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5813




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,9194




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,1780




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0460




KRW


South Korean won


1 797,93




ZAR


South African rand


11,4842




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,6250




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3240




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 275,68




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0206




PHP


Philippine peso


67,500




RUB


Russian rouble


44,9035




THB


Thai baht


48,010




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7472




MXN


Mexican peso


19,2836




INR


Indian rupee


68,5150






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-254/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura, Meeting Hotel, Hotel Blanc, Hotel Clyton, Business srl v Comune di Casoria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/12/EC — Article 15(a) — Waste disposal costs not allocated on the basis of actual production of waste — Compatibility with the polluter pays principle)
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, national law, polluter pays principle, waste disposal








C_2009220EN.01001301.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/13





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura, Meeting Hotel, Hotel Blanc, Hotel Clyton, Business srl v Comune di Casoria
(Case C-254/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/12/EC - Article 15(a) - Waste disposal costs not allocated on the basis of actual production of waste - Compatibility with the ‘polluter pays’ principle)
2009/C 220/21
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura, Meeting Hotel, Hotel Blanc, Hotel Clyton, Business srl

Defendant: Comune di Casoria

Intervener: Azienda Speciale Igiene Ambientale (ASIA) SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) — National system not allocating the costs of waste disposal on the basis of the production of waste or its possession with a view to handling by a waste collector or an undertaking responsible for its disposal — Compatibility with the ‘polluter pays’ principle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(a) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste must, as Community law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a tax or charge calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection.
It is, however, incumbent upon the national court to review, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether the tax for the disposal of private solid urban waste at issue in the main proceedings results in the allocation to certain ‘holders’, in the case in point hotel establishments, of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce.


(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.