ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-616/11) (1)

((Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services - Article 4.23 - Concept of payment instrument - Ordering transfers through online banking and by paper transfer order - Article 52(3) - Right of the payee to request from the payer charges for the use of a payment instrument - Power of Member States to lay down a general prohibition - Contract between a mobile phone operator and individuals))

2014/C 175/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

Defendant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4.23 and Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1) — Scope — Concept of ‘payment instrument’ — Provisions of national law which lay down a general prohibition of the imposition of handling charges in respect of the use of a payment instrument — Contract between a mobile phone operator and an individual — Payment by way of signed cash payment form, by transfer of cash payment form, or by transfer through online banking

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as being applicable to the use of a payment instrument in the course of the contractual relationship between a mobile phone operator, as payee, and that operator’s customer, as payer.

2) Article 4.23 of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that both the procedure for ordering transfers by means of a transfer order form signed by the payer in person and the procedure for ordering transfers through online banking constitute payment instruments within the meaning of that provision.

3) Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that it gives Member States the power to prohibit generally payees from levying charges on the payer for the use of any payment instrument, if the national legislation, as a whole, takes into account the need to encourage competition and the use of efficient payment instruments, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Siemens AG (C-239/11 P), Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (C-489/11 P), Toshiba Corp. (C-498/11 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-239/11 P, C-489/11 P and C-498/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Market sharing - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Proof of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Distortion of the evidence - Probative value of statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant - Fines - Starting amount - Reference year - Deterrent multiplier - Powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons)

2014/C 52/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Siemens AG (represented by: I. Brinker, C. Steinle and M. Hörster, Rechtsanwälte (C-239/11 P)), Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (represented by: R. Denton, Solicitor, and K. Haegeman, advocaat (C-489/11 P)), Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Dawes, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and S. Sakellariou, dikigoros (C 498/11 P))

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, R. Sauer, N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-110/07 Siemens v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the market in gas insulated switchgear projects or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing, the rights of the defence, the principle of equal treatment and the duty to state reasons — Distortion of the evidence — Erroneous application of the rules on limitation of actions — Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Siemens AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

(Case C-23/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Alleged violation of the right to respect for human dignity - Effective judicial protection - Right of access to a court)

2013/C 63/09

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Party to the main proceedings

proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — Right of appeal of third country nationals in relation to a refusal of entry — Action seeking to have declared unlawful the conduct of border officials during the procedure to authorise the crossing of an external border — Compensation for the non-material harm incurred as a result of such unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) obliges Member States to establish a means of obtaining redress only against decisions to refuse entry.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
1.

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or her daughter, who is also a third-country national, while their situation is the following: — that third-country national obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State in order to join, not in the context of marriage or registered partnership, a national of another Member State, by whom she has a child who has the nationality of the latter Member State; — only that national of another Member State has the status of worker; — in the meantime the cohabitation of the third-country national and the national of another Member State has come to an end; and — both children are members of their mother’s household, do not come within the scope ratione personae of that regulation, unless that third-country national or her daughter can be regarded, within the meaning of the national legislation and for its application, as ‘members of the family’ of the national of another Member State or, where that is not the case, unless they can be regarded as being ‘mainly dependent’ on him.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat

(Case C-244/12) (1)

(Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Articles 2(1) and 4(2) - Projects listed in Annex II - Extension works to the infrastructure of an airport - Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria - Article 4(3) - Selection criteria - Annex III, point 2(g) - Densely populated areas)

2013/C 156/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salzburger Flughafen GmbH

Defendant: Umweltsenat

Intervener: Landesumweltanwaltschaft Salzburg, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation 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 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Projects liable to an assessment — Extension of an airport — Member State's legislation providing for an environmental impact assessment of a project only if the annual number of flights increases by no less than 20 000.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 2(1) and 4(2)(b) and (3) 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 Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, preclude national legislation which makes projects which change the infrastructure of an airport and fall within the scope of Annex II to that directive subject to an environmental impact assessment only if those projects are likely to increase the number of aircraft movements by at least 20 000 per year;

2. When a Member State, pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, with regard to projects falling within the scope of Annex II thereto, establishes a threshold which is incompatible with the obligations laid down in Articles 2(1) and 4(3) of that directive, the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 4(2)(a) and (3) of the directive have direct effect, which means that the competent national authorities must ensure that it is first examined whether the projects concerned are likely to have significant effects on the environment and, if so, that an assessment of those effects is then undertaken.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/37

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu — Portugal) — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT)

(Case C-342/12) (1)

(Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Articles 6 and 7 - Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate - Article 17 - Security of processing - Working time - Record of working time - Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions - Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation)

2013/C 225/63

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho de Viseu — Interpretation of Article 2 and Article 17(1) 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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Concept of personal data — Data registered in a system recording the working time of workers of a company

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(a) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that a record of working time, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which indicates, in relation to each worker, the times when working hours begin and end, as well as the corresponding breaks and intervals, is included within the concept of ‘personal data’, within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 6(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an employer to make the record of working time available to the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions so as to allow its immediate consultation, provided that this obligation is necessary for the purposes of the performance by that authority of its task of monitoring the application of the legislation relating to working conditions, in particular as regards working time.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/34

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD

(Case C-259/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Belated recording in the accounts and declaration of the cancellation of an invoice - Remedying of the omission - Payment of the tax - State budget - No harm suffered - Administrative penalty)

2013/C 225/58

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Plovdiv

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv

Respondent: Rodopi-M 91 OOD

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Articles 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Administrative penalty imposed on the ground of late declaration of the cancellation of an invoice even though the cancellation has subsequently been entered in the accounts and the person concerned has paid the tax that results from the cancelled invoice not entered in the purchase ledger and in the tax return for the tax period in question — Fine equivalent to the total amount of tax not paid in time — Principle of fiscal neutrality

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authorities of a Member State from imposing upon a taxable person who has not fulfilled within the period prescribed by national legislation his obligation to record in the accounts and to declare matters affecting the calculation of the value added tax for which he is liable a fine equal to the amount of the value added tax not paid within that period where the taxable person has subsequently remedied the omission and paid all the tax due, together with interest. It is for the national court to determine, in view of Articles 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, whether in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings — in particular the period within which the irregularity was rectified, the seriousness of that irregularity, and the presence of any evasion or any circumvention of the applicable legislation that is attributable to the taxable person — the amount of the penalty imposed goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct collection of tax and preventing evasion.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Fiscale eenheid PPG Holdings BV cs te Hoogezand v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen

(Case C-26/12) (1)

(Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 17 and 13B(d)(6) - Exemptions - Deduction of input tax - Pension fund - Concept of ‘management of special investment funds’)

2013/C 260/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fiscale eenheid PPG Holdings BV cs te Hoogezand

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden — Interpretation of Articles 13B(d)(6) and 17 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) and of Articles 135(1)(g), 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 concerning the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person having, under national legislation on pensions, set up a pension fund in order to safeguard the pension rights of his employees as members of that fund — Deduction of input tax on services supplied to him for the purposes of the management of the pension fund

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17 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 a taxable person who has set up a pension fund in the form of a legally and fiscally separate entity, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in order to safeguard the pension rights of his employees and former employees, is entitled to deduct the value added tax he has paid on services relating to the management and operation of that fund, provided that the existence of a direct and immediate link is apparent from all the circumstances of the transactions in question.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/20

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA

(Case C-56/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Ink cartridge market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Lack of Community interest - Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC - Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged)

2013/C 344/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtanswalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, Rechtsanwalt), Lexmark International Technology SA

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T-296/09 EFIM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C-3/39.391 concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges — Powers of the Commission — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints — No Community interest — Proportionality — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Commission Notice on the handling of complaints

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
1.

The first subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2008 of 9 October 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the reference period, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 2078/92 of the Council of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and (EC) No 1257/1999 of the Council of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of the calendar year or years in the reference period which were not affected by those commitments.;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Deutsche Post AG v European Commission, UPS Europe NV/SA, UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG

(Case C-77/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Commission decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Action for annulment - Measure against which action for annulment may be brought - Measures intended to have binding legal effects - Earlier decision to initiate on the same measures)

2013/C 367/08

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), UPS Europe NV/SA, UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, advocaten)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Deutsche Post AG (aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07)) — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to an effective legal remedy — Misinterpretation of the right to sound administration as well as the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Inadequate statement of reasons in the General Court’s judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 December 2011 in Case T-421/07 Deutsche Post v Commission;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.