ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese

(Joined Cases C-182/11 and C-183/11) (1)

(Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Contracting authority exercising over a legally distinct successful tenderer control similar to that exercised over its own departments - No obligation to carry out a tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law (‘in-house’ award) - Successful tenderer controlled jointly by several local authorities - Conditions for the applicability of an in-house award)

2013/C 26/12

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Econord SpA

Defendants: Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Award without a call for tenders — Contract for the provision of urban hygiene services awarded by two public authorities, outside any formal procedure for the award of public procurement contracts, to a company in which the contracting authorities hold share capital — No effective control exercised by those authorities over the company providing the services

Operative part of the judgment

Where, in their capacity as contracting authority, a number of public authorities jointly establish an entity with responsibility for carrying out their public service mission, or where a public authority subscribes to such an entity, the condition established by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the effect that, in order to be exempted from their obligation to initiate a public tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law, those authorities must jointly exercise over that entity control similar to the control they exercise over their own departments, is fulfilled where each of those authorities not only holds capital in that entity, but also plays a role in its managing bodies.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Spain) — Isabel Elbal Moreno v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-385/11) (1)

(Article 157 TFEU - Directive 79/7/EEC - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Directive 2006/54/EC - Contributory retirement pension - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Indirect discrimination on grounds of sex)

2013/C 26/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Isabel Elbal Moreno

Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Interpretation of Clause 4(1), of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) and of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Concept of employment condition — Contributory retirement pension calculated on the basis of the Spanish statutory rules and contributions paid by and on behalf of the employee — Discrimination against part-time workers

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State which requires a proportionally greater contribution period from part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are women, than from full-time workers for the former to qualify, if appropriate, for a contributory retirement pension in an amount reduced in proportion to the part-time nature of their work.

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG, Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV)

(Case C-288/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aids - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic activity - Airport infrastructure construction - Runway)

2013/C 46/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG, Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller and J. Dammann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as agents), Federal Republic of Germany, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) (represented by: L. Giesberts and G. Kleve, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission and Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle v Commission, by which the General Court partially dismissed an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 31) — Applicability of the provisions of European Union law on State aid to aid granted for the construction of airport infrastructure — Concept of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU — Temporal application of the Commission’s guidelines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen eV (ADV) to bear its own costs

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce, Università del Salento v Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others

(Case C-159/11) (1)

(Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Services - Study and evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of hospital structures - Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university - Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator - Contract for pecuniary interest - Consideration not exceeding the costs incurred)

2013/C 46/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce, Università del Salento

Defendants: Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce, the Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri, the Associazione delle Organizzazioni di Ingegneri, di Architettura e di Consultazione Tecnico Economica (OICE), Etacons srl, Ing. Vito Prato Engineering srl, Barletti — Del Grosso e Associati srl, Ordine degli Architetti della Provincia di Lecce, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 of, and Annex II, categories 8 and 12, to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Contract attributed outside a procedure for awarding public works contracts — Provision of a service consisting in the conducting of a study and evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of certain hospitals — Contracts concluded between two public administrative authorities, the party providing the services being a university — Contracts for consideration, in which the consideration does not exceed the costs incurred

Operative part of the judgment

European Union public procurement law precludes national legislation which authorises the conclusion, without an invitation to tender, of a contract by which public entities establish cooperation among each other where — this being for the referring court to establish — the purpose of such a contract is not to ensure that a public task that those entities all have to perform is carried out, where that contract is not governed solely by considerations and requirements relating to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest or where it is such as to place a private provider of services in a position of advantage vis-à-vis his competitors.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

(Case C-544/11) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Freedom of movement for workers - Legislation of a Member State allowing exemption from taxation on income received for work carried out in another State in the context of development aid - Conditions - Establishment of the employer within the national territory - Refusal where the employer is established in another Member State)

2013/C 114/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the European Union — Legislation of a Member State allowing exemption from taxation of income received for work carried out abroad in the context of development aid — Restriction of that exemption to situations where the employer is established within the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State pursuant to which income received for employment activities by a taxpayer who is resident in that Member State and has unlimited tax liability is exempt from income tax if the employer is established in that Member State, but is not so exempt if that employer is established in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
2.

The principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct input value added tax because there is no actual taxable transaction even though, in the tax adjustment notice addressed to the issuer of that invoice, the value added tax declared by the latter was not adjusted. However, if, in the light of fraud or irregularities, committed by the issuer of the invoice or upstream of the transaction relied upon as the basis for the right of deduction, that transaction is considered not to have been actually carried out, it must be established, on the basis of objective factors and without requiring of the recipient of the invoice checks which are not his responsibility, that he knew or should have known that that transaction was connected with value added tax fraud, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air France v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts

(Case C-11/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 6 and 7 - Connecting flight(s) - Delay in arrival at the final destination - Delay equal to or in excess of three hours - A passenger’s right to compensation)

2013/C 114/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air France

Defendants: Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Intercontinental flight consisting of several stages — Situation in which the flight arrives at the final destination ten hours late, although departure was delayed for a period within the limits set out in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Possible right to compensation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at the final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time, given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met.

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-276/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - End-feed fittings and press fittings - Taking and assessment of the evidence - Right to be heard before a court - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)

2013/C 141/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant Viega GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-375/06 Viega GmbH & Co. KG v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the copper and copper alloy fittings sector or, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court, of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principles of the investigation procedure — Infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown

(Case C-645/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 1(1) and 6(1) - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Undue payment made by a State entity - Claim for recovery of that payment in legal proceedings - Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claims are connected - Close connection between the claims - Defendant domiciled in a non-member State)

2013/C 156/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Berlin

Defendant: Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Inclusion or not of an action for repayment of an amount unduly paid by a State body in an administrative procedure intended to compensate for damage caused by the Nazi regime

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1) 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 the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ includes an action for recovery of an amount unduly paid in the case where a public body is required, by an authority established by a law providing compensation in respect of acts of persecution carried out by a totalitarian regime, to pay to a victim, by way of compensation, part of the proceeds of the sale of land, has, as the result of an unintentional error, paid to that person the entire sale price, and subsequently brings legal proceedings seeking to recover the amount unduly paid.

2. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a close connection, within the meaning of that provision, between claims lodged against several defendants domiciled in other Member States in the case where the latter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rely on rights to additional compensation which it is necessary to determine on a uniform basis.

3. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to apply to defendants who are not domiciled in another Member State, in the case where they are sued in proceedings brought against several defendants, some of who are also persons domiciled in the European Union.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-424/11) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope - Occupational retirement pension schemes)

2013/C 123/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd, National Association of Pension Funds Ltd, Ford Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Salaried Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Pension Scheme for Senior Staff Trustee Ltd

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Request for preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) 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) — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p.1) — Exemptions — Scope of the exemption for the management of special investment funds — Inclusion of occupational retirement pension schemes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(6) 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 and Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme is not a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of those provisions, management of which may be exempted from value added tax in the light of the objective of those directives and the principle of fiscal neutrality, where the members of the scheme do not bear the risk arising from the management of the fund and the contributions which the employer pays into the scheme are a means by which he complies with his legal obligations towards his employees.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.