ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

(Case C-568/11) (1)

(Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Sugar-based product consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and 35 % impurities resulting from the manufacturing process - Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 - Production refund on certain products used in the chemical industry - Community aid wrongly paid - Repayment - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 225/23

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agroferm A/S

Defendant: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 of 27 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 63) — Tariff classification for the purposes of granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry — Sugar-based product manufactured by fermentation with the aid of Corynebacterium glutamicum bacteria and consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process — Classification under headings 2309, 2922 or 3824 of the Combined Nomenclature — Community aid wrongly paid

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process must be classified under heading 2309 as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding;

2. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national customs authorities from, first, seeking repayment of a wrongly paid amount of lysine sulphate production refunds that the producer has already received and, second, refusing to pay production refunds on that product which those authorities had given undertakings to that producer to pay.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/19

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

(Case C-653/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Supply of advertising and loan broking services - Exemptions - Economic and commercial reality of the transactions - Abusive practices - Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage)

2013/C 225/31

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 13B(d) 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) — Exemption of supplies of loan broking services — Loan broking activities directed at the United Kingdom by a company established in Jersey calling on the services of a person established in the United Kingdom — Attribution of the activities to the company established in Jersey or to the person established in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

Contractual terms, even though they constitute a factor to be taken into consideration, are not decisive for the purposes of identifying the supplier and the recipient of a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000. They may in particular be disregarded if it becomes apparent that they do not reflect economic and commercial reality, but constitute a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden [2010] ECR I-14 concerning the failure to transpose into Swedish law Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, and by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-205/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 3a - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State - Football World Cup - Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law - Statement of reasons - Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property)

2013/C 260/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and A. Joachimowicz and J. Stuyck, advocaten), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and T. de la Mare QC)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-68/08 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 declaring compatible with Community law measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Gosselin Group NV v European Commission, Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

(Case C-429/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - International removal services market in Belgium - Direct or indirect fixing of prices, market-sharing and the manipulation of the procedure for the submission of tenders - Classification - Infringement of competition by object - Obligation to state reasons - Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States - Legal force - Obligation to define the relevant market - Scope - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Proportion of the value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 25 - Limitation period - Repeated infringment)

2013/C 252/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Gosselin Group NV (represented by: F. Wijckmans, H. Burez and S. De Keer, avocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-208/08 Gosselin Group v Commission and Case T-209/08 Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje, by which the General Court, in Case T-208/08, annulled Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), in so far as that decision finds that Gosselin Group NV participated in an infringement of Article 81(1) EC from 30 October 1993 to 14 November 1996 and, in Case T-209/08, annulled Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Decision C(2009) 5810, in so far as it relates to Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gosselin Group NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team4 Travel GmbH

(Case C-435/11) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Sales brochure containing false information - Treated as ‘misleading commercial practice’ - Case in which the trader cannot be criticised for any breach of the duty of diligence)

2013/C 344/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CHS Tour Services GmbH

Respondent: Team4 Travel GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Brochure containing false information — Whether or not possible for a trader to show that the requirements of professional diligence have been complied with in order to prevent a commercial practice from being categorised as ‘unfair’

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that, if a commercial practice satisfies all the criteria specified in Article 6(1) of that directive for being categorised as a misleading practice in relation to the consumer, it is not necessary to determine whether such a practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence as referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of the directive in order for it legitimately to be regarded as unfair and, therefore, prohibited in accordance with Article 5(1) of the directive.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-499/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Fixing price targets, sharing clients through non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information - Imputability of the offending conduct - Discretion enjoyed by the Commission - Multiplier for deterrence - Equal treatment)

2013/C 260/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Kuhn, Rechtsanwälte, and by T. Graf, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment in Case T-42/07 Dow Chemical and Others v Commission, by which the General Court (First Chamber) dismissed in part the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber), concerning an agreement on the fixing of price targets, the sharing of clients through non-aggression agreements and the exchange of commercial information, and for reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH and Dow Europe GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-309/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/11

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Placios and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents);

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Finland;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

(Case C-625/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 57 and 59 - Substances subject to authorisation - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Inclusion on the candidate list of substances - Publication - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Date from which that time limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet - Legal certainty - Effective judicial protection)

2013/C 344/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and B. Koopman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA, dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 30 March 2010, identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) (CAS No 79 06 1) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including acrylamide in the list of substances identified with a view to future inclusion in Annex XIV to that regulation (list of substances subject to authorisation), in accordance with Article 59 thereof — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Act published only on the internet

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay Solexis SpA v European Commission

(Case C-449/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ - Calculation of the fine)

2014/C 45/09

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G.L. Zampa and G. Barone, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-195/06 Solvay Solexis SpA v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it concerns Solvay Solexis — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Solvay Solexis SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
3.

Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Belgium shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 859 404 for each six-month period of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Belgium, from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the judgment in Commission v Belgium has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which is to be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total relating to such periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion which the number of population equivalents which have been brought into compliance with the judgment in Commission v Belgium by end of such a period bears to the number of population equivalents which were not compliant with this judgment on the day of its delivery.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Deltafina SpA v European Commission

(Case C-578/11 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Immunity from fines Immunity from fines - Obligation to cooperate - Rights of the defence - Limits of judicial review - Right to fair legal process - Hearing of witnesses or of parties - Reasonable time - Principle of equal treatment))

2014/C 282/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Deltafina SpA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.