ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-640/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Recovery of taxes unduly paid under EU law - National legislation - Retroactive curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 065/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by adopting a provision, such as section 107 of the Finance Act 2007, which curtailed, retroactively and without notice or transitional arrangements, the right of taxpayers to recover taxes levied in breach of EU law the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

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

(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
1.

Declares, as regards the Kiato landfill site, that: — by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management at the Kiato landfill site is carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment and to ensure that the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled management of waste at said landfill site is prohibited, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives; — by tolerating the operation of the said landfill site without a valid permit complying with the conditions and content laid down for the grant of such a permit and, consequently, without the holder of the waste or the operator of the said landfill site being able to prove, before or at the time of delivery of the waste, that the waste can be accepted at the site in accordance with the conditions set out in the permit, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8, 9(a) to (c) and 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and Article 23 of Directive 2008/98; and — in failing to ensure that, during the operational phase of a landfill, the operator implements the control and monitoring programme referred to in Annex III to Directive 1999/31, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(a) of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others

(Case C-171/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Social security for migrant workers - Waiver of residence clauses - Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation - Residence requirement - Application to Turkish former workers - Turkish nationals having acquired the nationality of the host Member State)

(2015/C 073/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Defendants: M.S. Demirci, D. Cetin, A.I. Önder, R. Keskin, M. Tüle, A. Taskin

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, viewed also in the light of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as meaning that nationals of a Member State who have been duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State as Turkish workers cannot, on the ground that they have retained Turkish nationality, rely on Article 6 of Decision No 3/80 to object to a residence requirement provided for by the legislation of that Member State in order to receive a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 April 2005.

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
1.

Holds that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies of goods designed for fire protection, set out in Annex No 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 concerning tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III to that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

(Case C-349/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directives 92/12/EEC and 2008/118/EC - Scope - Mineral oils and energy products - Lubricating oils intended for use other than as motor or heating fuel - Exclusion - Excise duty levied on the consumption of energy products, imposed by a Member State in accordance with the rules of the harmonised tax system - Notion of ‘formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers’ - Article 110 TFEU - Deadline for payment shorter in certain cases for intracommunity purchases than for products acquired on the national market))

(2015/C 118/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as not precluding products not falling within the scope of those directives, such as lubricating oils intended for use other than as motor or heating fuel, being subject to a tax governed by rules identical to those of the harmonised tax system covered by those directives, since the fact of making those products subject to that tax does not entail any formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers in the context of trade between Member States.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
3)

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as applying to an action seeking to put in issue the liability of the issuer of a certificate on the basis of the prospectus relating to it and of breach of other legal information obligations binding on the issuer, in so far as that liability is not based on a matter relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the regulation. Under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, the courts where the applicant is domiciled have jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the loss occurred, to hear and determine such an action, particularly when the damage alleged occurred directly in the applicant’s bank account held with a bank established within the area of jurisdiction of those courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA and Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-93/13 P and C-123/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Chloroprene rubber market - Succession of production entities - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Repeated infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 138/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

(C-93/13 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, A. Bardanzellu, D. Durante, and V. Laroccia, avvocati)

(C-123/13 P)

Appellants: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, A. Bardanzellu, D. Durante, and V. Laroccia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Rejects the appeals in Cases C-93/13 P and C-123/13 P;

2) Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-93/13 P;

3) Orders Versalis SpA and Eni SpA to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-123/13 P.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet v Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS

(Case C-553/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 1(2) - Liquid fuel subject to excise duty - Sales tax - Concept of ‘specific purpose’ - Predetermined allocation - Organisation of public transport within the territory of a city))

(2015/C 138/16)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet

Defendant: Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as not permitting a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it is levied on retail sales of liquid fuel subject to excise duty, to be regarded as having a specific purpose within the meaning of that provision where that tax is intended to finance the organisation of public transport within the territory of the authority imposing the tax and where that authority is required to undertake and finance such transport irrespective of the existence of that tax, even if the revenue from that tax has been used solely for the purpose of performing that activity. The provision in question must therefore be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings instituting such a tax on retail sales of liquid fuel subject to excise duty.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — European Commission v Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s., Czech Republic

(Case C-596/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Internal market in natural gas - Obligation of natural gas undertakings - Organisation of a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities - Decision of the Czech authorities - Temporary exemption for future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice - Commission decision - Order to withdraw the exemption decision - Directives 2003/55/EC and 2009/73/EC - Temporal application))

(2015/C 171/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s. (represented by: P. Zákoucký and D. Koláček, advokáti), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Globula v Commission (T-465/11, EU:T:2013:406);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
1.

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of 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, must be interpreted as not precluding a finding that the evaluation of the tenders is unlawful solely on the grounds that the tenderer has had significant connections with experts appointed by the contracting authority who evaluated the tenders. The contracting authority is, at all events, required to determine the existence of possible conflicts of interests and to take appropriate measures in order to prevent and detect conflicts of interests and remedy them. In the context of the examination of an action for annulment of an award decision on the ground that the experts were biased, the unsuccessful tenderer may not be required to provide tangible proof of the experts’ bias. It is, in principle, a matter of national law to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the competent administrative and judicial control authorities must take account of the fact that possible bias on the part of experts has had an effect on the decision to award the contract. The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and Articles 2, 44(1) and 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18, must be interpreted as requiring a right to bring an action relating to the lawfulness of the tender procedure to be open, after the expiry of the period prescribed by national law, to reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderers who could understand the tender conditions only when the contracting authority, after evaluating the tenders, provided exhaustive information relating to the reasons for its decision. Such a right to bring an action may be exercised until the expiry of the period for bringing proceedings against the decision to award the contract.
1.

Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a resident of a Member State, who comes within the scope of that regulation, as amended, and who works for several days per month on the basis of an on-call contract in the territory of another Member State, is subject to the legislation of the State of employment both on the days on which he performs the employment activities and on the days on which he does not.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Karoline Gruber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, EMA Beratungs- und Handels GmbH, Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

(Case C-570/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Construction of a retail park - Binding effect of an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment - No public participation))

(2015/C 198/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karoline Gruber

Defendants: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, EMA Beratungs- und Handels GmbH, Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which an administrative decision declaring that a particular project does not require an environmental impact assessment, which is binding on neighbours who were precluded from bringing an action against that administrative decision, where those neighbours, who are part of the ‘public concerned’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, satisfy the criteria laid down by national law concerning ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’. It is for the referring court to verify whether that condition is fulfilled in the case before it. Where it is so fulfilled, that court must hold that the administrative decision not to carry out such an assessment is not binding on those neighbours.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/5

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-399/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Access to the documents of the European institutions - Documents relating to the trade negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India - Full access - Refusal))

(2015/C 236/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Zervas, acting as Agents)

Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hilden

(Case C-657/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Restrictions - Staggered recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains - Preservation of allocation of powers of taxation between Member States - Proportionality))

(2015/C 236/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Hilden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a transfer of assets from a company located within the territory of that Member State to a permanent establishment of that company located within the territory of another Member State, provides for the disclosure of unrealised capital gains pertaining to those assets which have been generated within the territory of that first Member State, the taxation of such capital gains and the staggered recovery of the tax relating to those gains over 10 annual instalments.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
1.

Medicinal products for human use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, issued in accordance with a medical prescription and for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authorities in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing an European Medicines Agency fall within the scope of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, by virtue of Article 2(1) thereof, if they have been prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process. Those medicinal products are covered by the exception referred to in Article 3, point 1, of that directive, as amended, only if they have been prepared in accordance with a medical prescription issued before their preparation, which must be specifically for a previously identified patient. Those medicinal products are covered by the exception referred to in Article 3, point 2, of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, only if they are delivered directly to patients supplied by the pharmacy which prepared them. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions for application of those provisions are satisfied in the main proceedings;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia)) — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija v Kaspars Nīmanis

(Case C-664/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Driving licence - Renewal by the issuing Member State - Condition of residence in the territory of that Member State - Declaration of residence))

(2015/C 279/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

Defendant: Kaspars Nīmanis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the only way in which a person who applies for the issue or renewal of a driving licence in that Member State can prove that he satisfies the condition of ‘normal residence’, within the meaning of that article, in the territory of that Member State, set out in Article 7(1)(e) and 7(3)(b) of that directive, is to establish that he has a declared place of residence in the territory of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.