ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges — France) — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement

(Case C-443/10) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Importation, by a person resident in a Member State, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State - Ecological subsidy - Conditions - Registration certificate attesting to the nature of the demonstration vehicle)

2011/C 347/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philippe Bonnarde

Defendant: Agence de Services et de Paiement

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administrative de Limoges — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57), amended by Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 (OJ 2004 L 10, p. 29) — Importation, by a person resident in France, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — National legislation making the grant of an environmental subsidy subject to presentation of a registration certificate bearing the statement ‘demonstration vehicle’ — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State from requiring, for the award of the subsidy known as the ‘bonus écologique — Grenelle de l’environnement’ to imported demonstration motor vehicles at the time of registration in that Member State, that the first registration document of those vehicles bear the words ‘demonstration vehicle’.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București) v Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — UCMR — ADA

(Case C-283/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3 - Concept of ‘communication of a work to a public present at the place where the communication originates’ - Dissemination of musical works in the presence of an audience without paying the collective management organisation the appropriate copyright fee - Entry into contracts, with the authors of the works, for copyright waiver - Scope of Directive 2001/29)

(2012/C 25/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Circul Globus București (Circ & Variete Globus București)

Defendant: Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România — Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor — UCMR — ADA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Dissemination of musical works in the presence of an audience without paying the collective management organisation the appropriate copyright fee — Entry into contracts, with the authors of the works, for copyright waiver — Concept of ‘communication of a work to a public present at the place where the communication originates’ — Scope of Directive 2001/29

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and, more specifically, Article 3(1) thereof, must be interpreted as referring only to communication to a public which is not present at the place where the communication originates, to the exclusion of any communication of a work which is carried out directly in a place open to the public using any means of public performance or direct presentation of the work.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into the Polish legal order Articles 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam

(Case C-275/10) (1)

(Article 88(3) EC - State aid - Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender for the purpose of enabling the latter to grant a loan to a borrower - Infringement of procedural rules - Obligation to recover - Nullity - Powers of the national court)

2012/C 32/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Residex Capital IV CV

Defendant: Gemeente Rotterdam

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — State aid — Interpretation of Art. 108(3) TFEU — Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender, enabling it to grant a loan to a borrower — Infringement of procedural rules — Jurisdiction of the national courts

Operative part of the judgment

The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC must be interpreted as meaning that the national courts have jurisdiction to cancel a guarantee in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which unlawful aid was implemented by means of a guarantee provided by a public authority in order to cover a loan granted by a finance company to an undertaking which would not have been able to secure such financing under normal market conditions. When exercising that jurisdiction, those courts are required to ensure that the aid is recovered and, to that end, they can cancel the guarantee, in particular where, in the absence of less onerous procedural measures, that cancellation is such as to lead to or facilitate the restoration of the competitive situation which existed before that guarantee was provided.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-454/10) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Second indent of Article 202(3) - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Participation in unlawful introduction - Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully)

(2012/C 25/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oliver Jestel

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union — Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully without directly taking part in that introduction — Conditions under which such a person can be considered to be a debtor of a customs debt.

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, participated in the introduction as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to be a debtor of a customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union where that person was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that that introduction was unlawful, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
—

it does not preclude the adoption, by a Member State, of standards applicable to the transport by road of pigs which, in order to strengthen legal certainty, define, in compliance with the objective of protecting the welfare of animals and without laying down any excessive criteria in that regard, the requirements provided for by that regulation as regards the minimum internal height of compartments intended for animals, provided that those standards do not result in additional costs or technical difficulties which disadvantage either producers in the Member State which has adopted those standards or producers from other Member States who wish to export their goods to or via that first Member State, that being a matter for the national court to determine. Standards such as those set out in the transitional provisions in Paragraph 36(4) of Order No 1729 of 21 December 2006 on the protection of animals during transport cannot, however, be regarded as proportionate since the same Member State has adopted less restrictive standards, such as those in Paragraph 9(1) of that order, under the system of general law;
3.

Article 5(3)(e) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in the light of Article 5(5) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the media, such as newspaper publishers, may not use, of their own volition, a work protected by copyright by invoking an objective of public security. However, it is conceivable that a newspaper publisher might, in specific cases, contribute to the fulfilment of such an objective by publishing a photograph of a person for whom a search has been launched. It should be required that such initiative is taken, first, within the framework of a decision or action taken by the competent national authorities to ensure public security and, second, by agreement and in coordination with those authorities, in order to avoid the risk of interfering with the measures taken by them, without, however, a specific, current and express appeal, on the part of the security authorities, for publication of a photograph for the purposes of an investigation being necessary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC)

(Case C-249/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 2(7), 9(5) and 17(3) - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling)

2012/C 80/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, S. De Knop and C. Dackö, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and R. Szostak, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and H. van Vliet, Agents), Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 in Case T 401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd and Others v Council by which that court dismissed an action seeking the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council;

2. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam in so far as it relates to Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings;

4. Orders the European Commission and the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs, both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/12

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV v FOD Financiën

(Case C-499/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Persons liable to pay tax - Third party jointly and severally liable - Warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing - Joint and several liability of the warehouse-keeper of the goods and the taxable person who owns the goods - Good faith or lack of fault or negligence of the warehouse-keeper)

2012/C 49/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV

Defendant: FOD Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 21(3) 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) — Persons liable to pay tax — Third party jointly and severally liable — National legislation holding the warehouse-keeper of the goods jointly and severally liable for payment of tax due by the taxable person who owns the goods, in warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(3) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as not authorising the Member States to provide that a warehouse-keeper other than a customs warehouse-keeper is jointly and severally liable for the value added tax which is owing on a supply of goods made for valuable consideration, and released from the warehouse, by the owner of the goods who is liable for the tax on those goods, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH

(Case C-420/10) (1)

(Placing on the market of biocidal products - Directive 98/8/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Concept of ‘biocidal products’ - Product causing flocculation of harmful organisms without destroying or deterring them or rendering them harmless)

2012/C 118/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Söll GmbH

Defendant: Tetra GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Classification, as a ‘biocidal product’, of a product causing flocculation of harmful organisms, without destroying them, deterring them or rendering them harmless — Anti-algae agent containing the substance aluminium chlorohydrate — Concept of ‘biocidal product’

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘biocidal products’ set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as including even products which act only by indirect means on the target harmful organisms, so long as they contain one or more active substances provoking a chemical or biological action which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

(Case C-523/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Website of a referencing service provider operating under a country-specific top-level domain of a Member State - Use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to a trade mark registered in another Member State)

2012/C 165/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wintersteiger AG

Defendant: Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Determination of jurisdiction in respect of an action seeking to prohibit the registration of a sign identical to a trade mark with a service provider operating an internet search engine in order that, following the entry of that sign as a search term (‘AdWord’), the screen automatically displays advertising for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark at issue is registered — Situation in which the trade mark is protected in a first Member State and the said display of advertising functions only at the top-level domain of that search engine specific to another Member State, while being accessible from the first Member State and in the official language of that latter State — Criteria for determining the ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a Member State because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another Member State may be brought before either the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered or the courts of the Member State of the place of establishment of the advertiser.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
1.

Finds that, due to the fact that the municipality of Niedernhausen awarded an architecture services contract relating to the renovation of a public building called ‘Autalhall’ located in the territory of that municipality, the value of which exceeded the threshold laid down in Article 7(b) 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, without conducting a Europe-wide invitation to tender, the Federal Republic of Germany infringed its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 20 in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) — Balkan and Sea Properties ADSITs (C-621/10), Provadinvest OOD (C-129/11) v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Joined Cases C-621/10 and C-129/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 73 and 80(1) - Sale of immovable property between connected companies - Value of the transaction - National legislation providing that for transactions between connected persons the taxable amount for VAT purposes is the open market value of the transaction)

2012/C 174/15

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Balkan and Sea Properties ADSITs (C-621/10), Provadinvest OOD (C-129/11)

Defendants: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria — Interpretation of Article 80(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Connected companies concluding a contract for the sale of immovable property — Provisions of national legislation that for transactions between connected persons the taxable amount for the purposes of VAT is the open market value of the transaction — Methods of determining open market values — Exclusion of the right to deduct VAT where the calculation of tax is unlawful

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 80(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of application it sets out are exhaustive and, consequently, that national legislation cannot on the basis of that provision provide that the taxable amount is to be the open market value of the transaction in cases other than those listed in that provision, in particular where the taxable person has a full right of deduction of value added tax, which is for the national court to ascertain.

2. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 80(1) of Directive 2006/112 confers on the companies concerned the right to rely on it directly to oppose the application of provisions of national legislation that are incompatible with that provision. If it is not possible to interpret the national legislation in conformity with Article 80(1) of the directive, the national court should disapply any provision of that legislation that is contrary to it.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011 OJ C 145, 14.5.2011