ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain)) — Transportes Jordi Besora SL v Generalitat de Catalunya

(Case C-82/12) (1)

((Indirect taxes - Excise duties - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Mineral oils - Tax on retail sales - Concept of ‘specific purpose’ - Transfer of powers to the Autonomous Communities - Financing - Predetermined allocation - Health-care and environmental expenditure))

2014/C 112/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Transportes Jordi Besora SL

Respondent: Generalitat de Catalunya

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Interpretation of Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Mineral oils — Special tax on retail sales of certain hydrocarbons — Indirect taxes other than excise duty pursuing specific purposes — Tax pursuing an aim capable of being achieved by another harmonised tax — Tax established simultaneously with the transfer of certain powers to the regions and directed, in part, at supporting expenditure of the regions linked to the new powers transferred — Purely budgetary purpose

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that establishes a tax on the retail sale of mineral oils such as the tax on retail sales of certain hydrocarbons (Impuesto sobre las Ventas Minoristas de Determinados Hidrocarburos) at issue in the main proceedings, for such a tax cannot be regarded as pursuing a specific purpose within the meaning of that provision where that tax, intended to finance the exercise by the regional or local authorities concerned of their powers in the fields of health and the environment, is not itself directed at protecting health and the environment.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands, ING Groep NV, De Nederlandsche Bank NV

(Case C-224/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Financial sector - Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - State Aid to a banking group - Form - Capital injection as part of a restructuring plan - Decision - Whether the aid compatible with the common market - Conditions - Amendment to the repayment terms of the aid - Private investor test))

2014/C 159/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Ree, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents, and P. Glazener, advocaat), ING Groep NV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, advocaten, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor), De Nederlandsche Bank NV (represented by: S. Verschuur and H. Gornall, advocaten, and M. Petite, avocat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10 Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission by which the General Court granted the applications for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/608/EC of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/09) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back Facility and Restructuring Plan (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 139)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders De Nederlandsche Bank NV to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — H. N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-604/12) (1)

((Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status - National procedural rule under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused - Lawfulness - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Right to good administration - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Impartiality and expeditiousness of the procedure))

2014/C 202/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. N.

Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Application for subsidiary protection status made by a person who had not previously made an application for refugee status

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refuges or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration do not preclude a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused, provided that, first, it is possible to submit the application for refugee status and the application for subsidiary protection at the same time and, second, the national procedural rule does not give rise to a situation in which the application for subsidiary protection is considered only after an unreasonable length of time, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
2)

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which dividends paid by companies established in that Member State to an investment fund situated in a non-Member State cannot qualify for a tax exemption, provided that that Member State and the non-Member State concerned are bound by an obligation under a convention on mutual administrative assistance which enables the national tax authorities to verify any information which may be transmitted by the investment fund. It is for the referring court, in the main proceedings, to examine whether the mechanism for the exchange of information provided for within that cooperation framework is in fact capable of enabling the Polish tax authorities to verify, where necessary, the information provided by investment funds established in the United States on the conditions for their formation and the conduct of their business, in order to establish that they operate within a regulatory framework equivalent to that of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH) v Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda

(Case C-574/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Award of the contract without a procurement procedure (in-house award) - Contractor legally separate from the awarding authority - Centre for hospital assistance and support services - Non-profit association operating in the public interest - Majority of the partners made up of awarding authorities - Minority of the partners made up of entities under private law, non-profit charitable associations - Activity carried out of at least 80 % of the annual turnover for the partners’ benefit))

2014/C 282/10

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH)

Defendant: Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda

Operative part of the judgment

Where the contractor under a public contract is a non-profit association which, at the time of the award of the contract, has as partners not only public sector entities but also private social solidarity institutions carrying out non-profit activities, the requirement for ‘similar control’, established by the case-law of the Court in order that the award of a public contract may be regarded as an in-house operation, is not met, so that Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts applies.

(1) OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Leicester — United Kingdom) — Z.J.R. Lock v British Gas Trading Limited

(Case C-539/12) (1)

((Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Composition of remuneration - Basic salary and commission according to turnover realised))

2014/C 253/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Employment Tribunal, Leicester

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z.J.R. Lock

Defendant: British Gas Trading Limited

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal, Leicester — United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) as amended by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Consultant being paid a basic salary together with monthly premiums according to the turnover realised and the number of sale contracts concluded, paid in arrears — Maintenance of the basic salary during annual leave, but not the premiums, except those linked to the services provided before the leave

Operative part of the judgment

1) 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 precluding national legislation and practice under which a worker whose remuneration consists of a basic salary and commission, the amount of which is fixed by reference to the contracts entered into by the employer as a result of sales achieved by that worker, is entitled, in respect of his paid annual leave, to remuneration composed exclusively of his basic salary.

2) The methods of calculating the commission to which a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, is entitled in respect of his annual leave must be assessed by the national court or tribunal on the basis of the rules and criteria set out by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in the light of the objective pursued by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

(Case C-474/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom of movement for workers - Non-discrimination - Article 346(1)(b) TFEU - Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests - Legislation of a Member State under which the statutory representatives of a business engaged within the national territory in the trading of arms, munitions and war material must hold the nationality of that Member State))

(2014/C 395/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schiebel Aircraft GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of businesses wishing to trade in military weapons and munitions and broker the sale and purchase of such goods, members of their statutory representation bodies, or their managing partner, must hold the nationality of that Member State. It is for the national court, however, to verify whether the Member State which, in order to justify that legislation, relies on the derogation allowed under Article 346(1)(b) TFEU is able to show that such derogation is necessary in order to protect its essential security interests.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Telefónica SA Telefónica de España SAU v European Commission, France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), European Competitive Telecommunications Association

(Case C-295/12 P) (1)

((Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Spanish markets for access to broadband internet - Margin squeeze - Article 263 TFEU - Review of legality - Article 261 TFEU - Unlimited jurisdiction - Article 47 of the Charter - Principle of effective judicial protection - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Amount of the fine - Principle of proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination))

2014/C 315/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Telefónica SA, Telefónica de España SAU (represented by: F. González Díaz and B. Holles, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), France Telecom España, SA (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, abogados), Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), (represented by: L. Pineda Salido and I. Cámara Rubio, abogados), European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Telefónica SA and Telefónica de España SAU to pay the costs;

3. Orders France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494), in so far as it rejected the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination as regards the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl and ordered them to pay the costs;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Vueling Airlines SA v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

(Case C-487/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Pricing freedom - Checking in baggage - Price supplement - Concept of ‘air fares’ - Consumer protection - Imposition of a fine on an air carrier for an unfair contract term - National law requiring the carriage of passenger and checked-in baggage to be included in the base price of a plane ticket - Whether compatible with EU law))

2014/C 421/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vueling Airlines SA

Defendant: Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires air carriers to carry, in all circumstances, not only the passenger, but also baggage checked in by him, provided that the baggage complies with certain requirements as regards, in particular, its weight, for the price of the plane ticket and without it being possible to charge any price supplement to carry such baggage.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-151/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Scope - Determination of the taxable amount - Concept of ‘subsidy directly linked to the price’ - Payment of a lump sum by the national sickness insurance fund to residential care homes for the elderly))

2014/C 151/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Le Rayon d’Or SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d'appel de Versailles — Interpretation of Article 11A(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), repeated in Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Scope of VAT — Subsidy directly linked to the cost of providing healthcare — Inclusion of the ‘healthcare lump sum’ paid by the sickness insurance funds to residential care homes for the elderly.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(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 and Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a lump-sum payment such as the ‘healthcare lump sum’ at issue in the main proceedings constitutes the consideration for the healthcare provided for consideration by a residential care home for the elderly to its residents and, on that basis, falls within the scope of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — FIRIN OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-107/13) (1)

((Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax paid - Payments made on account - Refusal to allow the deduction - Fraud - Adjustment of the deduction in the case where the taxable transaction is not carried out - Conditions))

2014/C 135/15

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FIRIN OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Interpretation of Article 168(a), read in conjunction with Articles 65, 90(1) and 185(1), and of Article 205, read in conjunction with Articles 168(a) and 193, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Principles of the neutrality of VAT, effectiveness and proportionality — Deduction of input tax paid — Payment made on account in respect of precisely identified goods prior to the supply — Refusal to allow the deduction at the time of receipt of the payment on account since supply not made — Possibility for the supplier to adjust the deduction initially made and impact on the refusal to allow such a deduction — Refusal to allow the recipient of a supply to deduct VAT because of the joint and several liability for payment of the tax of a taxable person other than the person liable — Designation of the person jointly and severally liable on the basis of presumptions founded on established precepts of civil law.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 65, 90(1), 168(a), 185(1) and 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as requiring that the deduction of value added tax made by the recipient of an invoice drawn up with a view to a payment being made on account in relation to the supply of goods be adjusted where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that supply is ultimately not made, even if the supplier remains liable for that tax and has not refunded the payment made on account.

(1) OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.