ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik v HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG

(Case C-134/11) (1)

(Directive 90/314/EEC - Package travel, package holidays and package tours - Article 7 - Protection against the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy on the part of the package organiser - Scope - Insolvency of the organiser on account of its fraudulent use of the funds transferred by consumers)

2012/C 98/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik

Defendant: HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59) — Protection against the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy of the organiser — Insolvency of the organiser on account of misappropriation of the funds transferred by consumers — Applicability of Directive 90/314/EEC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours is to be interpreted as covering a situation in which the insolvency of the travel organiser is attributable to its own fraudulent conduct.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — M.J. Bakker v Minister van Financiën

(Case C-106/11) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Legislation applicable - Worker holding Netherlands nationality working, for an employer established in the Netherlands, on board dredgers flying the Netherlands flag which operate outside the territory of the European Union - Residence in the territory of another Member State - Affiliation to the Netherlands social security system)

2012/C 217/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.J. Bakker

Defendant: Minister van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 1(a), 2 and 13(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 (OJ, English special edition, 1971(II), p. 416) — Worker with Netherlands nationality working on dredgers sailing outside the territory of the European Union under the Netherlands flag for an employer established in the Netherlands — Worker residing on the territory of another Member State — No affiliation to the Netherlands social security scheme

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, must be interpreted as precluding a legislative measure of a Member State from excluding, from affiliation to the social security scheme of that Member State, a person in the position of the applicant in the main proceedings, who holds that Member State’s nationality but does not reside in it and is employed on board a dredger flying the flag of that Member State and operating outside the territory of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd

(Case C-196/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ - Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive element - Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark - Likelihood of confusion)

2012/C 200/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Formula One Licensing BV (represented by: K. Sandberg and B. Klingberg, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Global Sports Media Ltd (represented by: T. de Haan, avocet)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09 (Formula One Licensing v OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of Community and national word and figurative marks ‘F1’, ‘F1 Formula 1’, ‘F1 Racing Simulation’, ‘F1 Pole Position’, and ‘F1 Pit Stop Café’, in respect of goods and services in Classes 16, 38, and 41, against Decision R 7/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 October 2008, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division refusing the registration of the figurative mark ‘F1-Live’, for goods and services in Classes 16, 38, and 41, in the context of the applicant’s opposition — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b), and Article 8(5), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09 Formula One Licensing v OHIM — Global Sports Media (F1-LIVE);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Compass-Datenbank GmbH v Republik Österreich

(Case C-138/11) (1)

(Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Data of the companies register stored in a database - Activity of collection and making available of that data in return for remuneration - Refusal by the public authorities to authorise re-utilisation of that data - ‘Sui generis’ right provided for in Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC)

2012/C 287/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compass-Datenbank GmbH

Defendant: Republik Österreich

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 102 TFEU — National rules providing for payment to be made for consultation of the companies register (Firmenbuch) and prohibiting any other commercial use of that register — Concept of economic activity — Abuse of a dominant position — Scope of the essential facilities doctrine

Operative part of the judgment

The activity of a public authority consisting in the storing, in a database, of data which undertakings are obliged to report on the basis of statutory obligations, in permitting interested persons to search for that data and/or in providing them with print-outs thereof does not constitute an economic activity, and that public authority is not, therefore, to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. The fact that those searches and/or that provision of print-outs are carried out in consideration for remuneration provided for by law and not determined, directly or indirectly, by the entity concerned, is not such as to alter the legal classification of that activity. In addition, when such a public authority prohibits any other use of the data thus collected and made available to the public, by relying upon the sui generis protection granted to it as maker of the database pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, or upon any other intellectual property right, it also does not exercise an economic activity and is not therefore to be regarded, in the course of that activity, as an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
2.

Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods in respect of which the exercise of the right to deduct is sought had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of value added tax, or on the ground that, in addition to that invoice, that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled, although the substantive and formal conditions laid down by Directive 2006/112 for exercising the right to deduct were fulfilled and the taxable person is not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud have been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-250/11) (1)

(Relief from customs duties and VAT exemptions on imports of goods - Fuel contained in the standard tanks of land motor vehicles - Notion of ‘motorised road vehicle’ - Locomotives - Road transport and transport by rail - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of neutrality)

2012/C 295/20

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB

Defendants: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Interpretation of Article 112 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) and of Article 107(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23) — Interpretation of Article 82(1) of Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 38) and Article 84(1)(a) of Council Directive 2009/132/EC of 19 October 2009 determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 2009 L 292, p. 5) — Import, free of customs duty and exempt from VAT, of fuel contained in the standard tanks of land motor vehicles — Company which had diesel put into the standard fuel tanks of its locomotives in a non-member State — Concept of land motor vehicles

Operative part of the judgment

Article 112(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988, Article 107(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, Article 82(1)(a) of Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods, as amended by Council Directive 88/331/EEC of 13 June 1988 and Article 84(1)(a) of Council Directive 2009/132/EC of 19 October 2009 determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods must be interpreted as meaning that they do not apply to locomotives.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Vodafone España SA v Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), and France Telecom España SA v Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11)

(Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11) (1)

(Directive 2002/20/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Authorisation - Article 13 - Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities)

2012/C 287/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vodafone España SA (C-55/11 and C-57/11), France Telecom España SA (C-58/11)

Defendants: Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11)

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Fees for rights of use and the right to install equipment — Municipal public property

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a fee for the right to install facilities on, over or under public or private property on operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of those facilities, use them to provide mobile telephony services;

2. Article 13 of Directive 2002/20 has direct effect and therefore it grants individuals the right to rely upon it before the national courts to dispute the application of a decision by the public authority that is incompatible with that article.

(1) OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg)) — DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts

(Case C-380/11) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Tax legislation - Capital tax - Conditions for granting a reduction in capital tax - Situation where a company is no longer liable to capital tax following transfer of its seat to another Member State - Restriction - Justification - Overriding reasons in the public interest)

2012/C 355/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C.

Defendant: Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Capital tax — National legislation making the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax in the Member State concerned for the next five tax years — Situation where a company is no longer liable for capital tax following the transfer of its seat to another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax for the next five tax years.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-75/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Article 18 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24 - Derogation - Scope - Member State in which reduced fares on public transport are granted only to students whose parents are in receipt of family allowances in that Member State)

2012/C 366/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and D. Roussanov, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Fruhmann, Agents)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18, 20 and 21 TFEU and of Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC — Contracts concerning the sale of reduced-price travel tickets to students concluded between various bodies of a Member State and various public transport undertakings — Exclusion from entitlement to those reductions of students whose parents are not entitled to family benefits in that State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by granting reduced fares on public transport in principle only to students whose parents are in receipt of Austrian family allowances, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU and also Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-402/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 18(1) - Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible - Right to an effective legal remedy)

2012/C 379/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. — Infringement of Article 80(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to an effective legal remedy

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE);

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.;

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to ensure that, for the years 2005 to 2007, the daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air did not exceed the limit values set in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, in the zones and agglomerations of Braga, Porto Litoral, Área Metropolitana de Lisboa Norte and Área Metropolitana de Lisboa Sul, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

(Case C-461/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Total or partial debt relief procedure - Debtor who is a natural person - National legislation making the grant of debt relief subject to a residence condition)

2013/C 9/31

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Stockholms tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Compatibility with Article 45 TFEU of national legislation making the grant of debt relief proceedings in respect of natural persons subject to a condition of residence in national territory — Debtor who is a national of Member State A, resident in Member State B, having made an application for debt relief in Member State A, the place of origin of his debts — Links with the place the application was made

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of debt relief subject to a condition of residence in the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.