ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does a product which is manufactured from sugar fermented with the aid of Corynebacterium glutamicum bacteria and which — as specified in more detail in Annex 1 to the order for reference — consists of approximately 65 % lysine sulphate, in addition to impurities from the manufacturing process (unmodified raw materials, reagents used in the manufacturing process, and by-products), come under heading 2309, heading 2922 or heading 3824 in the Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from Annex I to [Commission] Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 (1) of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? Is it relevant in this connection whether the impurities have been retained deliberately with a view to making the product particularly suitable, or to improve its suitability, for feed production, or whether the impurities have been retained because it is not necessary or expedient to remove them? What guidelines should be used to assess this matter in any given case? Is it relevant to the answer that it is possible to manufacture other products containing lysine, including ‘pure’ (≥ 98 %) lysine and lysine-HCl products that have a higher lysine content than the lysine sulphate product described above, and is it relevant in this connection that the amount of lysine sulphate and other impurities in the lysine sulphate product described above corresponds to that contained in other producers’ lysine sulphate products? What guidelines should be used to assess this matter in any given case?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/11

Summary for the Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-626/11 P)

2012/C 39/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the Order of the General Court in Case T-1/10; and

— annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006; or

— alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants' 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 decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006, the General Court breached Union 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 it making a number of errors in law, in particular:

— In holding that identification of a substance as a Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) by the ECHA Member State Committee in accordance with Article 59(8) of Regulation 1907/2006 is not a decision intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties before the publication of that decision on the Candidate list of SVHC in accordance with Article 59(10) Regulation 1907/2006;

For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-1/10 should be set aside and the decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006, should be annulled.

(1) 1 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC

OJ L 396, p. 1
2.

Does Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, or another provision of European Union law, such as, inter alia, Articles 34 TFEU or 35 TFEU or Articles 49 TFEU or 56 TFEU, preclude a provision of national law, such as Articles 8 to 14 of the [Belgian] Law of 10 November 2006 [on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services (‘the Law of 10 November 2006’)] which (save for certain exceptions set out in that law) require a trader to choose a weekly closing day for the shop, given that the trader is thereby prohibited from opening his shop seven days a week, irrespective of the impact that this has or may have on the average consumer and irrespective of whether that act may, in the particular circumstances, be regarded as being contrary to professional diligence or honest commercial practices, and irrespective also of the fact that other legislation besides the Law of 10 November 2006 safeguards employees’ rest periods for the purposes of employment law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58/6

Action brought on 21 December 2011 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-658/11)

2012/C 58/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer; (1)

— order that the effects of Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 be maintained until it is replaced;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.

The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters,.police cooperation, and development cooperation, covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.

Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in accordance with Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU.

For this reason the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.

Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at the stages of negotiation and conclusion of the Agreement.

Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

(1) OJ L 254, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 December 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV

(Case C-622/11)

2012/C 73/27

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Pactor Vastgoed BV

Question referred

Does the Sixth Directive (1) allow, in the event that the VAT initially deducted in accordance with Article 20 of the Sixth Directive is adjusted in such a way that the amount of the deduction must be reimbursed in full or in part, that amount to be charged to a person other than the taxable person who applied the deduction in the past, in particular — as is the case when Article 12a of the Wet (op de omzetbelasting 1968) (Law on turnover tax 1968) is applied — to a person to whom a property has been supplied by that taxable person?

(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 65/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2011 — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-680/11)

2012/C 65/15

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anita Chieza

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Question referred

1. Is the differential treatment on the basis of gender under the incapacity benefit scheme necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable age so that it falls within the scope of the derogation under Article 7(l)(a) of Directive 79/7 (1) in circumstances where a claimant: (a) is a woman; (b) falls ill before reaching pensionable age (for a woman, 60); (c) receives statutory sick pay (SSP) from her employer for 28 weeks, taking her past pensionable age; (d) after reaching pensionable age, makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit; (e) meets the contributions requirements for entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit; (f) is denied short-term incapacity benefit because as a matter of law her ‘period of incapacity for work’ began after she reached pensionable age (because legislation provides that a period of entitlement to SSP does not count as a period of incapacity for work),

but where a male claimant who falls ill shortly before the age of 60, receives SSP from his employer for 28 weeks, and makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit at the age of 60, will in principle qualify for short-term incapacity benefit, as his period of incapacity for work began before he attained pensionable age, albeit after reaching 60?

(1) 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 L 6, p. 24
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is the disposal referred to in that question equivalent to the transfer of (part of) a totality of assets within the meaning of Article 5(8) and/or of services within the meaning of Article 6(5) of the Sixth Directive, where the other shareholders, who also supply services that are subject to VAT to the company whose shares have been disposed of, transfer all the other shares in that company to the same person (almost) at the same time?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/8

Appeal brought on 27 February 2012 by Stefan Städter against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-532/11 Stefan Städter v European Central Bank

(Case C-102/12 P)

2012/C 399/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Stefan Städter (represented by: M.C. Kerber, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

By its order of 15 November 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
4.

By the fourth plea in law Kendrion submits that the General Court was wrong to reject as irrelevant Kendrion’s argument regarding the excessive duration of the proceedings in the General Court. The General Court thus appears to take the view that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on procedural irregularities in General Court proceedings. Even if it were the case that the General Court does not itself have the power to reduce fines on account of the excessive duration of its own proceedings, the Court of Justice is in any event obliged to rule on this point, which is one that is essential for legal certainty, and to draw the appropriate conclusions from it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Brück Edgar v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

(Case C-126/12)

2012/C 184/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brück Edgar

Defendants: Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

Question referred

Are Article 13(1) and Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as precluding the granting of (differential) child benefit by a Member State of residence, in cases where a person entitled to child benefit — like the other parent — is a cross-border commuter employed in Switzerland and draws family benefits there in respect of his children living in the Member State of residence which are lower than the child benefit provided for in the Member State of residence?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2 (English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1, and Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1.
3.

If the answer to the first question in point 2 is in the affirmative, what measures must the airline take in order to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation? — Can the airline be required, and if so on what conditions and to what extent, to have extra resources in the form of, for example, aircraft or crew available to operate a flight which would otherwise have had to be cancelled, or in order to be able to operate a flight in the place of a flight which has been cancelled? — Can an airline be required to offer passengers re-routing under Article 8(1)(b) [of the regulation]? In that case what is the obligation as regards carriage, for example, in respect of time of departure and the use of other carriers?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2012 — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

(Case C-12/12)

2012/C 89/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colloseum Holding AG

Defendant: Levi Strauss & Co.

Questions referred

Is Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that:

1. a trade mark which is part of a composite mark and has become distinctive only as a result of the use of the composite mark can be used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if the composite mark alone is used?

2. a trade mark is being used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if it is used only together with another mark, the public sees independent signs in the two marks and, in addition, both marks are registered together as a trade mark?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
—

declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2009/131/EC of 16 October 2009 amending Annex VII to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 January 2012 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-17/12)

2012/C 98/18

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Questions referred

1. Does the screening tax charged by the appellant to the advertisers in its capacity as tax substitute, in accordance with Article 50(1) of Decree-Law 227/2006, come within the concept of VAT taxable amount, within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC (2) of 28 November 2006) as it constitutes ‘the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for such supplies’?

2. Does the advertising tax charged by the appellant to the advertisers, in its capacity as tax substitute, and which is recorded in its accounts in a third party account, constitute an amount ‘received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which [is] entered in his books in a suspense account’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC of 28 November 2006?

3. Consequently, should these amounts charged by the appellant in respect of screening tax be included in the taxable base for the purposes of VAT?

(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.

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Are the provisions of Article 66(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding the Polish national provisions in Article 19(13)(2)(a) and (b) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 54, item 535, as amended) under which the time when the liability to pay the tax arises (the event on whose occurrence the tax becomes chargeable in respect of certain transactions) occurs in respect of transport and shipping services on receipt of payment in full or in part, but no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even where an invoice laying down a later deadline for payment is issued and presented to the purchaser no later than seven days after the service is supplied and the purchaser of the service has the right to deduct input tax during the period in which he received the invoice, irrespective of whether or not he has paid for the service?
1.

Do Article 49 TFEU, Article 3 TEU, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 TFEU, Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1992 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 12/1998 (2) preclude the application of Articles 3(3) and 11 of Law No 21 of 1992 in so far as the latter provisions respectively state that ‘3. The registered office of the carrier, and the garage, must be located, exclusively, within the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’ and that ‘… Bookings of car and driver hire shall take place at the garage. Each individual car and driver hire must begin and end at the garage located in the municipality where the authorisation was issued, returning to that garage, although the collection of the user and the user’s arrival at his destination may take place also in other municipalities …’?
(c)

paid to the mobile telephony operators by their users on an individual basis, and this amount is subsequently passed on to the Comptroller of Customs by all operators offering mobile telephony services, which amount is payable only by the operators and not by other undertakings, including those providing other electronic communications networks and services?
1.

May the fundamental right of workers to information and consultation, recognised by Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and as specified in the provisions of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, (1) be invoked in a dispute between private individuals in order to assess the compliance of a national measure implementing the directive?
1.

Does Article 56(1) EC (now Article 63 TFEU) apply to an assessment of the permissibility of the application by a Member State of provisions of national law which draw a distinction between the legal situation of taxable persons in such a way that they grant, as part of a general tax exemption, an exemption from flat-rate corporation tax on dividends received by investment funds established in a Member State of the European Union but do not provide for such an exemption for an investment fund which is resident for tax purposes in the USA?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles, in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;
—

The obligations resulting from Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 in conjunction with Article 16(1) and (2)(b) thereof to provide maximum capacity to all market participants and, in particular, services for virtual reverse flow gas transport. According to the Bulgarian authorities, the reason why the abovementioned obligation to provide maximum capacity was not fulfilled is that there is no physical connection between the transit system and the national gas transport system of the Republic of Bulgaria, and that those systems are subject to different regulations. A further reason why that obligation was not fulfilled, claim the Bulgarian authorities, is that there are three interstate agreements in force between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Government of the USSR, which were concluded in 1986 and 1989. The Commission contends that, if the interstate trade agreement of 27 April 1998 between OOO Gazprom and Bulgartransgaz EAD impedes the fulfilment by the Bulgarian authorities of their obligation to provide maximum capacity, the Republic of Bulgaria is required, pursuant to Article 351(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take all appropriate steps to eliminate such incompatibilities with the provisions of European Union law.