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

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht — Germany) — Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

(Case C-506/10) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Agricultural lease - Agricultural structure - Legislation of a Member State enabling an objection to be made to the contract if the goods produced in national territory by the self employed Swiss frontier farmers are intended to be exported, free of duty, to Switzerland)

2011/C 347/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel

Defendant: Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen, Landwirtschaftsgericht — Interpretation of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Objection by the competent authority of a Member State to an agricultural tenancy agreement in respect of agricultural land in that State and concluded with a Swiss farmer whose business is established in Switzerland — National legislation allowing such an objection, on the ground of a distortion of competition, in respect of land used for the production of agricultural products to be exported free of duty outside the internal market

Operative part

The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authority of that Member State may object to an agricultural lease — relating to land located in a given area of the territory of that Member State and concluded between a resident of that Member State and a frontier-zone resident of the other contracting party — on the grounds that the land leased is used for producing agricultural products intended for export, free of duty, outside the internal market of the European Union and so gives rise to distortion of competition, if the application of that legislation affects a much greater number of nationals of the other Contracting Party than nationals of the Member State on whose territory that legislation applies. It is for the national court to determine whether that latter situation in fact exists.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — KHS AG v Winfried Schulte

(Case C-214/10) (1)

(Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Lapse of right to paid annual leave not taken because of illness on the expiry of a period laid down by national rules)

(2012/C 25/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KHS AG

Defendant: Winfried Schulte

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Right to payment in lieu of untaken paid annual leave of a worker who could not exercise his right to paid annual leave, on account of sick leave, during the reference period and whose unfitness for work persisted for several years until the end of his employment relationship — Collective agreement allowing payment in lieu of paid annual leave which has not been taken to be made only at the end of the employment relationship and providing that entitlement to paid annual leave which has not been taken because of illness lapses 15 months after the end of the reference period.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions or practices, such as collective agreements, which limit, by a carry-over period of 15 months on the expiry of which the right to paid annual leave lapses, the accumulation of entitlement to such leave of a worker who is unfit for work for several consecutive reference periods.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission

(Case C-109/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Market in soda ash in the Community - Abuse of dominant position - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Access to the file - Hearing of the undertaking)

2011/C 370/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis and A. Vallery, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] — Competition — Soda ash market in the Community (excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland) — Abuse of a dominant position — Infringement of the right to be tried within reasonable time — Infringement of procedural rights — Wrong earlier definition of the relevant geographic market — Lack of statement of reasons — Exceptional circumstances showing lack of a dominant position

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission;

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash — Solvay);

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that asbestos-cement waste is treated in suitable landfills, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and the provisions of the Annex to Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

(Case C-126/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Valid commercial reasons - Restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations - Definition)

(2012/C 25/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA

Defendant: Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

Intervener: Ministério Público

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Operations pursuing the ends of tax evasion or avoidance — Meaning of ‘valid commercial reasons’ and ‘restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a merger operation between two companies of the same group, the fact that, on the date of the merger operation, the acquired company does not carry out any activity, does not have any financial holdings and transfers to the acquiring company only substantial tax losses of undetermined origin, even though that operation has a positive effect in terms of cost structure savings for that group, may constitute a presumption that the operation has not been carried out for ‘valid commercial reasons’ within the meaning of Article 11(1)(a). It is incumbent on the national court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the dispute on which it is required to rule, whether the constituent elements of the presumption of tax evasion or avoidance, within the meaning of that provision, are present in the context of that dispute.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against X

(Case C-507/10) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Protection of vulnerable persons - Hearing of minors as witnesses - Special measure for early taking of evidence - Refusal by the Public Prosecutor to request the judge in charge of preliminary investigations to hear a witness)

2012/C 49/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Party in the main proceedings

X

Intervener: Y

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Firenze — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p 1) — Hearing of minors as witnesses — Hearing of a minor who has been the victim of sexual abuse — Protective measures which are not made mandatory by national legislation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 3 and 8(4) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as Articles 392(1a), 398(5a) and 394 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which, first, do not impose on the Public Prosecutor any obligation to apply to the competent court so that a victim who is particularly vulnerable may be heard and give evidence under the arrangements of the incidente probatorio during the investigation phase of criminal proceedings and, second, do not give to that victim the right to bring an appeal before a court against that decision of the Public Prosecutor rejecting his or her request to be heard and to give evidence under those arrangements.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/6

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune

(Case C-585/10) (1)

(Integrated pollution prevention and control - Directive 96/61/EC - Annex I, subheading 6.6(c) - Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows - Inclusion or non-inclusion of places for gilts)

2012/C 39/09

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Niels Møller

Defendant: Haderslev Kommune

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of subheading 6.6 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Facilities intended for intensive poultry and pig farming having over 750 places for sows — Whether or not to include places for gilts (pigs after first heat which have not yet farrowed)

Operative part of the judgment

The expression ‘places for sows’, in subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it includes places for gilts (female pigs which have already been serviced, but have not yet farrowed).

(1) OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADV Allround Vermittlungs AG, in liquidation v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf

(Case C-218/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Articles 9, 17 and 18 - Determination of the place where services are supplied - Concept of ‘supply of staff’ - Self-employed persons - Need to ensure that a provision of services is assessed identically in relation to the provider and in relation to the recipient)

2012/C 73/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ADV Allround Vermittlungs AG, in liquidation

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzamt Hamburg — Interpretation of the sixth indent of Article 9(2)(e) and Articles 17(1), 17(2)(a), 17(3)(a) and 18(1)(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 — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Determination of the place where a service, consisting of the provision to the recipient of the service of self-employed persons not in the employ of the provider, is deemed to be supplied for tax purposes — Concept of ‘staff’ — Need to ensure an identical assessment of whether a transaction is liable to VAT in relation to the service provider, on the one hand, and to the recipient of that service, on the other

Operative part of the judgment

1. The sixth indent of Article 9(2)(e) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘supply of staff’ referred to in that provision also includes the supply of self-employed persons not in the employ of the trader providing the service.

2. Articles 17(1), 17(2)(a), 17(3)(a) and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to amend their domestic procedural rules in such a way as to ensure that the taxability and liability to value added tax of a service are assessed in a consistent way in relation to the provider and in relation to the recipient of that service, even though they fall within the jurisdiction of different tax authorities. However, those provisions require the Member States to adopt the measures that are necessary to ensure that value added tax is collected accurately and that the principle of fiscal neutrality is respected.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’

(Case C-213/10) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - Concept of an action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(1) and (2)(b) - Concepts of civil and commercial matters and of bankruptcy or winding-up - Action brought on the basis of an assignment, by a liquidator, of his right to have a transaction set aside)

2012/C 165/04

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F-Tex SIA

Defendant: Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and of Articles 1(2)(b) and 2(1) 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) — International jurisdiction to decide an actio Pauliana directly and closely connected with insolvency proceedings — Conflict of jurisdiction between the court in which the insolvency proceedings are taking place and the court of the defendant’s domicile — Actio Pauliana brought after the opening of insolvency proceedings, by the sole creditor of the company in liquidation, in a Member State other than that in which the insolvency proceedings are taking place, following the assignment by the liquidator to the creditor of the company’s claims against third parties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) 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 brought against a third party by an applicant acting on the basis of an assignment of claims which has been granted by a liquidator appointed in insolvency proceedings and the subject-matter of which is the right to have a transaction set aside that the liquidator derives from the national law applicable to those proceedings is covered by the concept of civil and commercial matters within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS) v Boys Toys SA, Administración del Estado

(Case C-190/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition - Earlier trade mark - Procedure for filing - Filing by electronic means - Method enabling precise identification of the day, hour and minute when the application was filed)

2012/C 133/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS)

Defendants: Boys Toys SA, Administración del Estado

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Priority — Procedure for filing — Method (e-mail) enabling precise identification of the day, hour and minute when the application was filed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003 must be interpreted as precluding account being taken not only of the day but also of the hour and minute of filing of an application for a Community trade mark with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) for the purposes of establishing that trade mark’s priority over a national trade mark filed on the same day, where, according to the national legislation governing the registration of national trade marks, the hour and minute of filing are relevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
1.

Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) 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 Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, which is not designated under those provisions as being the competent State, from granting child benefits in accordance with its national law to a migrant worker who is working temporarily within its territory in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, including in the case where it is established, first, that the worker concerned has not suffered any legal disadvantage by reason of the fact that he has exercised his freedom of movement, since he has retained his entitlement to family benefits of the same kind in the competent Member State, and, second, that neither that worker nor the child for whom the benefit is claimed habitually resides within the territory of the Member State in which the temporary work was carried out.;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)

(Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Right of residence - Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised - Retention of Turkish nationality - Date of naturalisation)

2012/C 151/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendants: Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence for members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised but has retained Turkish nationality — Date of naturalisation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State can still invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.