ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Duomo Gpa Srl (C-357/10), Gestione Servizi Pubblici Srl (C-358/10), Irtel Srl (C-359/10) v Comune di Baranzate (C-357/10 and C-358/10), Comune di Venegono Inferiore (C-359/10)

(Joined Cases C-357/10 to C-359/10) (1)

(Articles 3 EC, 10 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 81 EC - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 15 and 16 - Concession relating to the assessment, verification and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue - National legislation - Minimum share capital - Obligation)

2012/C 194/03

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Duomo Gpa Srl (C-357/10), Gestione Servizi Pubblici Srl (C-358/10), Irtel Srl (C-359/10)

Defendants: Comune di Baranzate (C-357/10 and C-358/10), Comune di Venegono Inferiore (C-359/10)

Intervener in support of the defendants: Agenzia Italiana per le Pubbliche Amministrazioni SpA (AIPA)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) and Articles 3, 10, 43, 49 and 81 EC — Commercial communications by the regulated professions — The award of services relating to the assessment, verification and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue — Minimum share capital required under national legislation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which:

— economic operators, except companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership, are required, if necessary, to increase their fully paid up capital to a minimum of EUR 10 million in order to be entitled to pursue the activities of assessment, verification and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue;

— the award of those services to operators who fail to satisfy the minimum requirement of share capital is to be null and void, and

— it is prohibited to obtain new contracts or participate in tender procedures for the operation of those services until the abovementioned requirement to adjust share capital has been met.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Republic of Austria v Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GesmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics, European Commission

(Case C-47/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Articles 87 EC and 88(2) and (3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment - Notion of ‘interested party’ - Statement of reasons for judgments - Burden of proof - Measures of organisation of procedure before the General Court - Articles 64 and 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

2011/C 370/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent, Núñez Müller, J. Dammann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics (represented by J. Hofer and T. Humer, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by V. Kreuschitz and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009Scheucher-Fleisch and Others v Commission (T-375/04), in which the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision C(2004) 2037 final of 30 June 2004 in relation to State aid NN 34A/00 concerning the quality programmes and quality labels ‘AAMA Biozeichen’ and ‘AMA Gütesiegel’ in Austria (OJ 2005 C 105, p. 30) — Erroneous interpretation of the expression ‘Adirectly and individually concerned’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU in that the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was obliged to initiate the procedure laid down by that provision — Infringement of the rules concerning the burden of proof — Insufficient reasons stated for the judgment under appeal — Lack of necessary inquiry measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the additional appeal;

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

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
1.

Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as precluding national rules which, in the absence of the data subject’s consent, and in order to allow such processing of that data subject’s personal data as is necessary to pursue a legitimate interest of the data controller or of the third party or parties to whom those data are disclosed, require not only that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject be respected, but also that the data should appear in public sources, thereby excluding, in a categorical and generalised way, any processing of data not appearing in such sources.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission

(Case C-389/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper plumbing tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)

2012/C 32/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, A. Winckler, avocat, G. Rizza, avvocato, T. Graf, advokat, M. Piergiovanni, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, acting as Agents, C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 in Case T-25/05 KME Germany and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision 2006/485/EC of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) (notified under No C(2004) 2826), concerning a system of allocation of production volumes and market shares, and the setting of targets and price increases on the European market for copper plumbing tubes

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-392/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Article 15(1) and (3) - Agricultural products - System of export refunds - Differentiated export refund - Conditions for granting - Import of the product into the third country of destination - Payment of import duties)

2012/C 73/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 15(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) and of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Product exported from a Member State to a third State for the purpose of substantial processing under the inward processing procedure without payment of import duty — Export of the product resulting from that processing to another third State — Conditions for the grant of a differentiated export refund — Need to place the product in free circulation in the third State of destination with payment of import duty?

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2003 of 11 March 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition for receipt of a differentiated refund laid down by that article, namely completion of the customs import formalities, is not satisfied when in the third country of destination, following release for inward processing without collection of import duties, the product undergoes a ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and the product resulting from that processing or working is exported to a third country.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-221/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Non-contractual liability of the Union - Conditions - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Decision withdrawing marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone)

2012/C 165/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Artegodan GmbH (represented by: U. Reese, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Heller, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action for compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the adoption of Commission Decision C(2000) 453 of 9 March 2000, concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing amfepramone — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Erroneous assessment of the criteria as to the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Artegodan GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
2.

Article 2(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of the Convention and the directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the scope of those instruments. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions have been satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply ‘ratify’ a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons in the public interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been commenced, cannot be regarded as a specific act of legislation within the meaning of the latter provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the scope of that Convention and that directive as amended.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-337/10) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Working conditions - Organisation of working time - Right to paid annual leave - Allowance in lieu in the event of sickness - Public servants (firemen))

2012/C 174/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Neidel

Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Article 7 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) — Entitlement to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in full because of unfitness for service lasting for several years before retirement — Scope ratione personae of Directive 2003/88/EC — Public servants (firemen)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7 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 applying to a public servant carrying out the activities of a fireman in normal circumstances.

2. Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that a public servant is entitled, on retirement, to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was prevented from working by sickness.

3. Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law conferring on a public servant an entitlement to further paid leave in addition to the entitlement to a minimum paid annual leave of four weeks, which do not provide for the payment of an allowance in lieu if a public servant who is retiring has been unable to use that additional entitlement because he was prevented from working by sickness.

4. Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which restricts, by a carry-over period of nine months on expiry of which the entitlement to paid annual leave lapses, the right of a public servant who is retiring to cumulate the allowances in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was unfit for service.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-508/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Application for long-term resident status - Application for a residence permit in a second Member State made by a third-country national who has already acquired long-term resident status in a first Member State or by a member of his family - Amount of the charges levied by the competent authorities - Disproportionate charges - Obstacle to the exercise of the right of residence)

2012/C 174/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Intervening party in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: T. Papadopoulou, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Application for long-term resident status — Administrative charges — Excessive and unfair amounts — Means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying (i) to third-country nationals seeking long-term resident status in the Netherlands, (ii) to those who, having acquired that status in a Member State other than the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are seeking to exercise the right to reside in that Member State, and (iii) to members of their families seeking authorisation to accompany or join them, excessive and disproportionate administrative charges which are liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Italy) — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

(Case C-500/10) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Sixth Directive - Articles 2 and 22 - Automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance)

2012/C 151/11

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ufficio IVA di Piacenza

Defendant: Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Value added tax — Articles 2 and 22 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) — Obligation of Member States to ensure the effective recovery of VAT — National legislation providing for the closure, in certain circumstances, of judicial proceedings in tax matters without any ruling on the substance by the court hearing the case at third instance, the decision of the court of second instance thus becoming res iudicata — Claim that the effect is the abandonment of the recovery of harmonised taxes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 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 not precluding the application in value added tax matters of an exceptional provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance where those proceedings originate in an application brought at first instance more than 10 years, and in practice more than 14 years, before the date of the entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance, the consequence of that automatic conclusion being that the decision of the court of second instance becomes final and binding and the debt claimed by the tax authorities is extinguished.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2012 — Pye Phyo Tay Za v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

(Case C-376/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Republic of the Union of Myanmar - Freezing of funds applicable to persons, entities and bodies - Legal basis)

2012/C 133/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (represented by: D. Anderson QC, S. Kentridge QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway, acting as Agent, and D. Beard, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-181/08 Tay Za v Council, by which the Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006, in so far as the applicant’s name appears on the list of persons, entities or bodies to which those provisions apply (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 May 2010 in Case T-181/08 Tay Za v Council;

2. Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 in so far as Mr Tay Za is concerned;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings;

4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.