ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/19

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt) v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf

(Case C-440/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Betting and gaming - Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines - Whether permissible - Basis of assessment - Whether the taxable person can pass on the VAT)

2013/C 367/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt)

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 1(2), Article 73, Article 135(1)(i) and Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxation of betting and gaming — Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 135(1)(i) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax and a special national tax on games of chance may be levied cumulatively, provided that the special national tax cannot be characterised as a tax on turnover;

2. The first sentence of Article 1(2) and Article 73 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision or practice whereby, in the operation of gaming machines offering the possibility of winnings, the amount of the cash receipts from those machines is used after a set interval as the basis of assessment;

3. Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding a national system regulating an unharmonised tax, under which the value added tax owed is to be set in full against that tax.

(1) OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare

(Case C-184/12) (1)

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Articles 3 and 7(2) - Freedom of choice of the parties - Limits - Mandatory rules - Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Contracts for sale or purchase of goods - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - National implementing legislation providing for protection going beyond the minimum requirements of the directive and providing also for protection for commercial agents in the context of contracts for the supply of services)

2013/C 367/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV

Defendant: Navigation Maritime Bulgare

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1), and Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Freedom of choice of the parties — Limits — Commercial agency contract — Clause designating the law of the State of the principal to be the applicable law — Bringing of a case before the court of the commercial agent’s place of establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 must be interpreted as meaning that the law of a Member State of the European Union which meets the minimum protection requirements laid down by Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents and which has been chosen by the parties to a commercial agency contract may be rejected by the court of another Member State before which the case has been brought in favour of the law of the forum, owing to the mandatory nature, in the legal order of that Member State, of the rules governing the situation of self-employed commercial agents, only if the court before which the case has been brought finds, on the basis of a detailed assessment, that, in the course of that transposition, the legislature of the State of the forum held it to be crucial, in the legal order concerned, to grant the commercial agent protection going beyond that provided for by that directive, taking account in that regard of the nature and of the objective of such mandatory provisions.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-90/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Air transport - Agreements relating to air services between Member States and third countries - Obligation on Member States to distribute traffic rights among eligible Community air carriers on the basis of a non-discriminatory and transparent procedure and to inform the Commission of that procedure without delay)

2014/C 9/09

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 7) — Obligation on the Member States to distribute traffic rights among eligible Community air carriers on the basis of a non-discriminatory and transparent procedure and to inform the Commission of that procedure without delay

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not taking the necessary measures to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG, Republic of Austria v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid declared illegal and incompatible with the common market - Aid granted to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) at the time of the privatisation of Bank Burgenland AG - Determination of the market price - Tender procedure - Unlawful conditions with no impact on the highest offer - ‘Private vendor’ test - Distinction between a State’s obligations in cases where it acts as a public authority and where it acts as a shareholder - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 367/22

Language of the cases: German

Parties

Appellants: Land Burgenland (represented by: U. Soltész, P. Melcher and A. Egger, Rechtsanwälte), Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (represented by: H. Wollmann, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and J. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria, Land Burgenland

Interveners in support of Land Burgenland and the Republic of Austria: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: K. Petersen, T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08 Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on the State aid granted by Austria as part of the privatisation of the Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32) — Breach of European Union law and, in particular, of Article 107(1) TFEU — Incorrect assessment of the performance bond (‘Ausfallshaftung’) of the Land Burgenland in favour of Bank Burgenland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG and the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-40/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)

2014/C 39/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-79/06 Sachsa Verpackung v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector and an application to vary that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs of this appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc

(Case C-493/12) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Wording of the claims of the basic patent - Precision and specificity - Functional definition of an active ingredient - Structural definition of an active ingredient - European Patent Convention)

2014/C 45/24

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company Ltd

Defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc

Re:

Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria for assessment — Application of criteria to products not composed of a combination of medicinal products and medical devices

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient is covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office, Article 3(a) of that regulation does not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it is possible to reach the conclusion on the basis of those claims, interpreted inter alia in the light of the description of the invention, as required by Article 69 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the Protocol on the interpretation of that provision, that the claims relate, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt

(Case C-394/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application - Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application - Scope of judicial review)

2014/C 45/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Asylgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Shamso Abdullahi

Defendant: Bundesasylamt

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Asylgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 10, 16, 18 and 19 thereof, and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3) — Somali national having crossed the frontier of the European Union in Greece from where she then went, via third countries and Hungary, to Austria, where she submitted, less than 12 months after her first entry on European Union territory, an application for asylum — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining that asylum application

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation — namely, as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union — the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Innoweb BV v Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV

(Case C-202/12) (1)

(Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Article 7(1) and (5) - Sui generis right of the database maker - Concept of ‘re-utilisation’ - Substantial part of the contents of the database - Dedicated meta search engine)

2014/C 52/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag, formerly Gerechtshof te ‘s Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Innoweb BV

Defendants: Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te s’-Gravenhage — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 7(1) and (5) 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) — Right of the database maker to prohibit the extraction and/or repeated re-utilisation of a substantial part of the contents of a database — Prohibition of the repeated and systematic re-utilisation of non-substantial parts of the contents of a database implying acts that conflict with normal exploitation of that database or unreasonably prejudicing the interests of the maker of the database — Sufficiency of repeated re-utilisation or cumulative condition of systematic re-utilisation — Re-utilisation through an automated system.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that an operator who makes available on the Internet a dedicated meta search engine such as that at issue in the main proceedings re-utilises the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database protected under Article 7, where that dedicated meta engine:

— provides the end user with a search form which essentially offers the same range of functionality as the search form on the database site;

— ‘translates’ queries from end users into the search engine for the database site ‘in real time’, so that all the information on that database is searched through; and

— presents the results to the end user using the format of its website, grouping duplications together into a single block item but in an order that reflects criteria comparable to those used by the search engine of the database site concerned for presenting results.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte v Ibero Tours GmbH

(Case C-300/12) (1)

(Value-added tax - Operations of travel agents - Granting of price discounts to customers - Determination of the taxable amount for services provided as part of an intermediary activity)

2014/C 85/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte

Defendant: Ibero Tours GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 11(C)(1) and Article 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 L 145, p. 1) — Operations of travel agents — Granting of price discounts to customers resulting in a reduction of the travel agent’s commission — Determination of the taxable amount for the intermediary service.

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions 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 principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-317/94 Elida Gibbs [1996] ECR I-5339 concerning the determination of the taxable amount for VAT purposes do not apply when a travel agent, acting as an intermediary, grants to the final consumer, on the travel agent’s own initiative and at his own expense, a price reduction on the principal service provided by the tour operator.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-270/12) (1)

(Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 - Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps - Article 28 - Validity - Legal basis - Powers of intervention conferred on the European Securities and Markets Authority in exceptional circumstances)

2014/C 85/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: A. Robinson, Agent, J. Stratford QC and A. Henshaw, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard, R. Van de Westelaken, D. Gauci and A. Gros-Tchorbadjiyska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, A. De Elera and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and E. Ranaivoson, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and F. Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, B. Smulders, C. Zadra and R. Vasileva, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Validity of Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (OJ 2012 L 86, p. 1) — Institutional balance — Infringement of the conditions established by the case-law of the Court of Justice for the delegation of powers to agencies — Infringement of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU — Infringement of Article 114 TFEU — Attribution of powers of intervention to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) — Margin of discretion conferred on ESMA as regards the need for it to intervene and the measures to be adopted — Nature of the measures capable of being adopted by ESMA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
1.

Declares that, by excluding, in Article 4(9) of Law No 223 relating to provisions on technical lay-offs, mobility, unemployment benefit, implementation of Community directives, employment services and other provisions relating to the employment market (legge n. 223 — Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilita’, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunita’ europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro), of 23 July 1991, the category of ‘dirigenti’ from the scope of Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1(1) and (2) of that Directive.