ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/11

Appeal brought on 7 June 2012 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-498/09 P-DEP Petrus Kerstens v European Commission

(Case C-304/12 P)

2013/C 108/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (represented by: C. Mourato, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 7 February 2013 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Kerstens to bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupreau SAS

(Case C-2/13)

2013/C 71/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Respondent: Humeau Beaupreau SAS

Question referred

In the process of manufacturing footwear, must the operations of shaping the counter of an upper and of roughing of that upper and an outer sole, prior to their assembly, be classified as ‘assembly operations’ or ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’, within the meaning of point VII of the Explanatory Notes to General Rule 2(a) on the Interpretation of the Harmonised System?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 14 January 2013 — Jürgen Langenbächer and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-16/13)

2013/C 108/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jürgen Langenbächer, Janet Langenbächer, Jaqueline Langenbächer

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

The case was removed from the register by order of the Court of Justice of 30 January 2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/14

Appeal brought on 4 January 2013 by IDT Biologika GmbH against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-6/13 P)

2013/C 108/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: IDT Biologika GmbH (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012, served on the applicant/appellant by fax on 26 October 2012;

— annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 1 September 2010 rejecting the tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 by IDT Biologika GmbH in response to the call for tenders (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Supply of the Republic of Serbia, and awarding the contract to a consortium of various firms led by ‘Bioveta a.s.’;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s application.

The discretion to be exercised by the respondent European Commission in the context of the tendering procedure at issue was — from a factual and technical aspect — not exercised in such a way as to be unimpeachable.

In particular, the General Court erroneously assumed that Bioveta a.s. had, in the tendering procedure, furnished proof of the safety of the product offered by means of corresponding national authorisations, and that separate tests on primates in order to prove the non-virulence to humans of the product offered were not required.

Moreover, Bioveta a.s. has not provided proof that its vaccine is based not on the original but on a modified SAD-Bern virus strain.
1.

Is it contrary to Community law, when an undertaking participating in a tendering procedure has failed to declare, in its request for participation, that its technical director has not been the object of any of the prosecutions and convictions referred to in Article 38(1)(b) and (c) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, for an interpretation of that article to be given, in accordance with which the awarding entity must order the exclusion of that undertaking even when that undertaking has suitably proved that the use of the term ‘technical director’ in its request was due to a mere clerical error?
2.

Must Article 17 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 be interpreted as meaning that tax cannot be deducted from an invoice issued by a person who merely acted as a front for the sale of goods effected by another trader, without it being demonstrated that the acquirer was aware, or on the basis of objective factors could have foreseen, that the transaction in which he was participating was connected with fraud or other irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice or a trader working with him?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 11 February 2013 — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

(Case C-72/13)

2013/C 141/23

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gmina Wrocław

Respondent: Minister Finansów

Question referred

Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) preclude the imposition of VAT on the activities of a municipality consisting in the sale or the contribution to commercial companies of property, including immovable property, acquired by operation of law or without consideration, in particular by inheritance or gift?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding the body of rules introduced by Law No 9/2012 (in its original wording) establishing a tax on pollutant emissions from motor vehicles, if that tax is structured in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States, but without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market?
3.

Does the Commission’s failure to act by non-disbursement of the Community contribution preclude the application of Article 42(a) of Abruzzo Regional Law 31/82, under which the appellant was granted the regional contribution ancillary to the Community contribution and, consequently, [does that failure] preclude payment of the regional contribution? At all events:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2013 — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-134/13)

2013/C 141/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 314/2011 of 30 March 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (1) valid in so far as it classifies infrared thermal cameras under CN code 9025 19 20?

(1) OJ L 86, p. 57
2.

Where no obligation to draw up consolidated accounts exists, is it necessary, in order to decide whether an enterprise is linked with another enterprise via a person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, to undertake, over and above an examination of the ‘relationships’ set out in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to the SME Recommendation, an overall economic examination, in which aspects such as property relationships — in this case particularly the fact that shareholders belong to one family —, the share structure and the degree of economic integration — in particular also the identity of the managing directors — of the enterprises in question are to be scrutinised?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Hauptzollamt Köln v Kronos Titan GmbH

(Case C-43/13)

2013/C 123/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Defendant: Kronos Titan GmbH

Question referred

Does Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, (1) in relation to the taxation of energy products other than those for which a level of taxation is specified in the Directive, require the application of a rate of tax which national law specifies for the use of an energy product as heating fuel, provided that that other energy product is also used as heating fuel? Or, in cases where the other energy product — in circumstances where it is used as heating fuel — is equivalent to a particular energy product, can the rate of tax specified by national law for this energy product be applied, even in the case where the rate of tax is the same irrespective of whether it is being used as motor fuel or as heating fuel?

(1) OJ L 283, p. 51.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

(Case C-189/13)

2013/C 164/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raquel Gianni Da Silva

Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Question referred

Does European Union law preclude national legislation under which illegal entry by a third-country national who has not been subjected to the coercive measures provided for in Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment? (1)

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

(Case C-140/13)

2013/C 156/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Annett Altmann and Others

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

Questions referred

1. Is it compatible with European Union law for mandatory obligations of secrecy which are incumbent on the national authorities responsible for supervising financial services undertakings and which are based on relevant acts of European Union law (in this case, Directive 2004/109/EC, (1) Directive 2006/48/EC (2) and Directive 2009/65/EC (3)) and have been transposed accordingly into national law, as in the Federal Republic of Germany by Paragraph 9 of the Kreditwesengesetz (Law on the Activities of Credit Institutions) and Paragraph 8 of the Wertpapierhandelsgesetz (Law on Securities Trading), to be capable of being breached by the application and interpretation of a provision of national procedural law such as Paragraph 99 of the VwGO?

2. Can a supervisory authority such as the German Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Office for the Supervision of Financial Services) rely, as against a person who has applied to it under the German national Law on Freedom of Information for access to information concerning a particular financial services provider, on obligations of secrecy incumbent upon it inter alia under European Union law, as laid down in Paragraph 9 of the Kreditwesengesetz and Paragraph 8 of the Wertpapierhandelsgesetz, even in circumstances where the essential business concept of the company which offered financial services but has since been dissolved on grounds of insolvency and is in liquidation consisted in large-scale investment fraud and the wilful harming of investors’ interests and the responsible executives of the company have been sentenced by final judgment to terms of several years’ imprisonment?

(1) Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ 2004 L 390, p. 38).

(2) Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 L 177, p. 1).

(3) Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/21

Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2013 in Case T-368/11: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL v European Commission

(Case C-199/13 P)

2013/C 171/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS and Travetanche Injection SPRL (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, R. Cana, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-368/11; and

— annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 (the ‘Contested Regulation’) amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (acrylamide) (1); or

— alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's Application for annulment; and

— order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of the Contested Regulation, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular it:

— misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 (2) when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances;

— misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in relation to the evaluation of the exposure data taken into account;

— erred in law and misinterpreted REACH when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by adopting the Contested Regulation on the basis of information related to a different product than the product subjected to restrictions by the Contested Regulation;

— erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe the principle of proportionality;

— erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons; and

— misinterpreted the Contested Regulation in finding that it also covers NMA grouts containing acrylamide.

For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-368/11 should be set aside and the Contested Regulation should be annulled.

(1) OJ L 101, p. 12

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, OJ L 161, p. 3
—

Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellant incurred in connection with its intervention(s).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg

(Case C-204/13)

2013/C 178/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Saarlouis

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Heinz Malburg

Question referred

Having regard to the principle of tax neutrality, must Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(2)(a) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a partner in a partnership of tax advisors who acquires from the partnership a portion of its client base for the sole purpose of providing directly thereafter to a newly founded partnership of tax advisors, in which he is the principal partner, a licence to use such client base for commercial purposes and free of charge may be entitled to deduct the input tax arising from the acquisition of the client base?

(1) 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-148/13)

2013/C 171/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2013 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria v George Ciocoiu

(Case C-214/13)

2013/C 189/16

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria

Defendant: George Ciocoiu

Question referred

Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the imposition by a Member State of a tax on pollutant emissions upon the first registration in that Member State of second-hand vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, when the levying and payment of that same tax, provided for under a legislative act in respect of second-hand vehicles on the national market of similar age, technical condition and mileage and payable on first transfer of ownership, have subsequently been suspended by a legislative act having the force of law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV and Others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu; other parties: Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Terschellinger Stoombootmaatschappij BV

(Case C-207/13)

2013/C 189/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Eigen Veerdienst Terschelling BV, MPS Stortemelk BV, MPS Willem Barentsz BV, MS Spathoek NV, G.A.F. Lakeman, trading as Rederij Waddentransport

Defendant: Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Other parties: Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Terschellinger Stoombootmaatschappij BV

Questions referred

1. Does the designation of the Netherlands portion of the Waddenzee as an inland waterway (Zone 2 waterway) in Annex I to Directive 2006/87 (1) preclude the application of the Cabotage Regulation to public passenger transport services over the Waddenzee between the Netherlands mainland and the Wadden islands of Terschelling, Vlieland, Ameland and Schiermonnikoog?

2. Does the applicability of the Cabotage Regulation preclude application of the PSO Regulation, (2) having regard to Article 1(2) of the PSO Regulation?

3. Are Member States free, under Article 1(2) of the PSO Regulation, to declare just one or more specific parts of that regulation, in this case Article 5(3) and, related thereto, Article 5(4), to be applicable to services of public passenger transport by water?

4. Can the exception provided for in Article 5(4) of the PSO Regulation, more particularly the distance criterion of 300 000 kilometres laid down in that provision, (simply) be declared to be applicable to services of public passenger transport by water?

5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, what consequences should then be attached to the fact that in the case in question operating licences for services of public passenger transport by water were granted in the absence of compliance with the requirements of Article 7(2) of the PSO Regulation?

(1) Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Council Directive 82/714/EEC (OJ 2006 L 389, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).